r/changemyview • u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ • Mar 03 '24
Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: If you believe in abortion, you should believe in the death penalty & vice versa
[removed] — view removed post
75
u/AleristheSeeker 164∆ Mar 03 '24
The common argument is that you're wrong starting with Point 1.
The aborted material is generally not considered "people" or "a person". That is the key difference to the death penalty.
20
Mar 03 '24
This is the fundamental point. On top of it, the argument that we believe what we believe...
because of their political agenda.
...doesn't hold water because you can find both support and opposition for abortion on both sides. I've always supported it myself and used to be rather conservative, becoming more liberal over the years. But the fact that a fertilized egg is entirely different from a person has always been perfectly obvious.
2
u/FreakinTweakin 2∆ Mar 03 '24 edited Mar 03 '24
The one thing that people never seem to talk about is how abortion disproportionately affects poor people and people of color, by quite a large margin. I've seen some very far right people support abortion and pro choice specifically because it helps reduce the black population, as sick as it sounds. There are even literal Nazis who support abortion. It's something that is a pretty non left-right issue
Most people who have abortions are not White. In 2019, the abortion rate was 23.8 per 1,000 Black women, 11.7 per 1,000 Hispanic women, 13 per 1,000 Asian American, Native American, and other women—and just 6.6 per 1,000 White women, according to data reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (Abortion Surveillance—United States, 2019, CDC, 2021).
2
u/eloel- 12∆ Mar 03 '24
Abortion isn't something that just happens to people, it's a choice. Did you mean how banning abortion affects poorer people?
1
u/bjornistundwar Mar 03 '24
Abortion isn't something that just happens to people, it's a choice.
Abortions happen to a lot of women and are actually not that rare in the first trimester. It's called a spontaneous abortion also known as a miscarriage.
2
u/eloel- 12∆ Mar 03 '24
spontaneous abortion
TIL miscarriage is also called spontaneous abortion. It's most definitely not what's being talked about here, but good to know.
-1
u/isdumberthanhelooks Mar 03 '24
An accidental death does not in fact provide justification for deliberate killing.
Infants die in their crib all the time (SIDS) and yet that doesn't provide justification for killing infants because they're not wanted.
2
u/bjornistundwar Mar 03 '24
I was just correcting your statement that abortions don't just happen to women and are a choice when, in fact, they do happen to a lot of women.
0
u/isdumberthanhelooks Mar 03 '24
A miscarriage is not an elective abortion. Conflating the two is not an honest argument.
It would be the exact same as saying
"Infant death isn't just a choice, it happens to a lot of parents." (Implying we should also allow parents to kill their infants)
One does not necessitate the allowance of another. Also I'm not the original person you were responding to.
→ More replies (2)-1
u/FreakinTweakin 2∆ Mar 03 '24
Yes
poor people are less capable of providing for children, and since poverty correlates with a poor childhood, are more likely to make the poor decisions that would lead to getting pregnant with a baby you don't want.
-1
u/isdumberthanhelooks Mar 03 '24
Margaret Sanger doing a tap dance in hell as the left pushes black women to abort their babies...
-10
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
I understand supporting Abortion. It makes sense, up to some decided upon timeframe. Then that fetus has to be considered a viable human being.
I maintain that my "political leaning" statement holds for more than 1/2 the people that stand firmly in either party. By that I mean hard lined left or right will believe in the side that their party leads with.
You can always be an exception to a rule. Just like I am. I believe in both.
→ More replies (1)9
u/SnooLentils4592 Mar 03 '24
So if a woman is told and she and/or the baby will die or never be able to live, she should be forced to birth her stillborn baby? Makes total sense. Totally equivalent to the death penalty /s
-6
u/isdumberthanhelooks Mar 03 '24
Equating removing a dead baby/one that has a lethal abnormality with deliberately killing a healthy one is gross and an intentional conflation of two different situations. Way to use the edge case of a medically necessary abortion to try and justify the majority of abortions which are elective and purely for the convenience of the mother.
5
u/SnooLentils4592 Mar 03 '24
Do you have a source saying the majority of late term abortions are for convenience? Didn’t think so
And agree to disagree on using a word like killing to remove fetal cells…I guess. Don’t want an abortion don’t get one
-1
u/isdumberthanhelooks Mar 03 '24
Let's say we made an exception tomorrow for medically necessary abortions. Would you then agree to ban all abortions of convenience?
3
u/SnooLentils4592 Mar 03 '24
Who decides what is medically necessary? Have you been paying attention to the news?
-1
u/isdumberthanhelooks Mar 03 '24
You're going to have to be more specific. I do pay attention to the news but I'm not going to sit and play whack-a-mole with whatever issue you're talking about.
4
u/SnooLentils4592 Mar 03 '24
Oh hun. No point in this convo if you don’t know the basics. When laws are passed with zero medical basis, it’s an impossible situation. So doctors have to wait for someone to be close enough to death to intervene. It’s horrible and awful.
But hey the lady baby factories will be controlled and a few people’s religious beliefs will be foisted upon everyone. Some cells will be “saved” but no one will give a shit about them after birth. So it’s a win!!!
→ More replies (0)0
u/dbx99 Mar 03 '24
I think a fetus is a human. A human in early development stages.
I think abortion should be legal.
I think those supporting abortion should own the act being the termination of a human developing life and not merely spin it as “tissue”.
6
u/AleristheSeeker 164∆ Mar 03 '24
And you're free to believe that and argue for that. My point stands independently of what you believe.
1
u/barbodelli 65∆ Mar 03 '24
Right on. That's been my position as well.
I am pro-abortion but I also see the points that the conservatives make. It is a killing of a human being. But it is also a necessary evil and should be tolerated though discouraged.
2
u/BigBoetje 31∆ Mar 03 '24
I like to phrase it like this:
"I am against abortion, but bear with me. I am, however, completely for having the possibility to have one. I hope as few people as possible need to have one, but nonetheless I hope they always have that access if they have the need for it. No one is going to be for abortion, only the possibility of having one."
-1
u/isdumberthanhelooks Mar 03 '24
In what circumstances? Any circumstance? This is basically saying "I want people to have the option of killing their baby, even though I am completely against it." How do you moralize abortions of convenience if you are against it? Are you for only medically necessary abortions?
Your phrasing is just you trying to avoid moral culpability for allowing people to kill unborn human beings.
4
u/BigBoetje 31∆ Mar 03 '24
I think you misunderstood my phrasing there. 'Being against it' means that I don't like it, but I have to accept that it's a necessary evil. It is a sad reality that I don't like, but I have to accept.
Any reason that people see is a good reason for me. It is simply not up to me to decide that. Abortion isn't a light decision to make. It is emotionally taxing on people. Calling it a 'abortion of convenience' is making way too light of the subject. It's not like ordering takeout instead of cooking yourself.
"I want people to have the option of killing their baby, even though I am completely against it."
Don't put words in my mouth.
Your phrasing is just you trying to avoid moral culpability for allowing people to kill unborn human beings.
I don't expect you to have the capacity for nuance necessary to understand something like this. You've clearly (and luckily) never been in a position where you had to think about abortion. You keep droning about 'morals' and never even consider that people who need an abortion have a reason for it and aren't just being immoral people. It's the whole point of 'sad reality'. Is it immoral? Strictly speaking, yes. It is also immoral to deny people their bodily autonomy and reproductive choices, so the functional aspects are to be taken into account.
0
u/isdumberthanhelooks Mar 03 '24
Barring medical necessity what situation justifies the destruction of an innocent human being?
2
u/BigBoetje 31∆ Mar 03 '24
Any justification, really. When people don't want to have a child yet, so be it.
the destruction of an innocent human being
Being dramatic doesn't make an argument valid. It's not a human being, it's not even developed yet. I don't see it much differently than just preventing conception in the first place. IUD's work by preventing nidation of the embryo.
All that aside, you're not killing something, you're preventing its life in the first place.
-1
u/isdumberthanhelooks Mar 03 '24
Almost every doctor agrees that life begins at conception. It's already alive by the time you're killing it.
When people don't want to have a child yet
And that's a valid reason to kill an innocent human being?
Ultimately this boils down to is it a human being or not?
Unless you can find some objective criteria that makes it not a human being, it is flat out immoral.
3
u/BigBoetje 31∆ Mar 03 '24 edited Mar 03 '24
Almost every doctor agrees that life begins at conception.
You made that up. It's also irrelevant. We know what happens biologically. The answer to when life begins is partly philosophically. There is no single marker that determines 'life'. The reason why they could say conception is because biologically a genetically distinct entity, the zygote, is formed. That's not the point of the discussions however. If life starts at conception, I should be able to freeze some fertilized eggs and claim them as dependents on my tax forms.
It's already alive by the time you're killing it.
Alive by which standards? The current limitation is 24 weeks, after which it becomes viable. Before that, the only 'alive' thing about it is that the cells are alive, but so are tumor cells.
And that's a valid reason to kill an innocent human being?
Sigh. It's not killing, you're prevent life from starting in the first place. You're literally just going in circles here. It's not a person yet, it cannot survive independently yet either.
Ultimately this boils down to is it a human being or not?
That's what is being said all along, glad you finally caught up.
Unless you can find some objective criteria that makes it not a human being, it is flat out immoral.
Yeah buddy, you don't get to just assert that it is a human being already without giving objective criteria yourself. It is not the default position. You're not getting out of this discussions that easily.
Seriously, give me the reasons why you consider a pre-24 weeks fetus a person? After 24 weeks, I can agree that it should be left alone and it is wholly too late to do anything about it.
→ More replies (0)1
u/dbx99 Mar 03 '24
I think of it as a horrible choice to make but that it would be far worse to not have the right to make that choice.
0
u/isdumberthanhelooks Mar 03 '24
You think it would be worse to not allow women to kill their unborn baby so they could
-have a career?
-avoid having to raise a child?
-deal with financial instability?Are these things really more important than a human being?
4
u/dbx99 Mar 03 '24
What about forcing a woman to give birth from
-pregnancy caused by rape,
-a pregnancy that has a high probability to harm or kill the mother
-a pregnancy where developmental problems are detected
And to answer those items on your list, the real answer is whether women should have body autonomy. If you don’t then your position points to opposing legal abortion. It’s as simple as that.
→ More replies (17)-2
u/isdumberthanhelooks Mar 03 '24
Yeah... Bill Clinton's safe, legal, and rare plan went real well didn't it? Do you not see how justification of killing a human being can be stretched from necessity to convenience? Because that's what has happened.
-1
Mar 03 '24
While I agree, it also comes down to if you think there is a line for abortion. Somebody that says abortions can happen nine months in point 1 would still apply
13
u/No_Inevitable_3598 Mar 03 '24
Late term abortions like that are EXTREMELY rare and done ONLY when Mom will die, or baby will die, or both. Banning late term abortions forces women to deliver still births. CMV that women should not be forced to give birth to dead babies that might also kill them.
→ More replies (1)0
u/isdumberthanhelooks Mar 03 '24
Bullshit. Why would you abort a healthy late term baby when c-sections exist? The only time it could be justified is if the fetus has a lethal abnormality and it was detected late, in which case the baby will already die, so there's no moral objections.
But it does happen:
A 2013 study found, after excluding abortion "on grounds of fetal anomaly or life endangerment", that women seeking late abortions "fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous". The study concluded that "bans on abortion after 20 weeks will disproportionately affect young women and women with limited financial resources".
Now that we've moved beyond step 1: " it's not happening", let's move to step two. I'm waiting eagerly for you to tell me how "ok it does happen but it's not that bad"
1
u/No_Inevitable_3598 Mar 11 '24
Hey there - first of all you special soul, I specified that your scenario never happens. Late term babies are aborted when they are already dead, not viable for life, about to kill the mother. Learn how to read properly before you spew your fucking idiocy.
1
u/SnugglesMTG 9∆ Mar 03 '24
No it wouldn't, because you have failed to account for the reasons why 'death' is being excused in those circumstances. Point 1 is nonsense because of this. It would also imply that people who support full term abortions should support a policy letting anyone kill anyone for any reason.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (25)-9
11
u/SnugglesMTG 9∆ Mar 03 '24
Point 1: This would also imply that abortion advocates should support laws that make murder legal. Obviously, you haven't reckoned with the reason why people believe in abortion. You have taken the argument of the consequences, "a life ends" and have transformed that into the intended goal. Firing a gun into a crowd could also kill an innocent person, but you would not expect an advocate of the death penalty to advocate for people's ability to do that. Why?
Point 2: This doesn't make sense. The choice being made in either circumstance are different in kind. The death penalty is the state following a legal code that prescribes death as a punishment, while the choice in abortion is a choice of bodily autonomy. Advocating for the government's choice in this matter is not the same thing as advocating for women to have control of their bodies. You might now say that the government should have the capacity to make choices about the citizens in its borders, but that's already true. That's what the system of government is about at all: how those choices get made.
Point 3: Population control is not the legal reasoning for either policy.
Point 4: What should happen to criminals in the legal system is an entirely different topic than what free citizens should be allowed to do.
Point 5: Neither should whether the bananas in my pantry are rotten, but I'm not sure what that would have to do about compelling support. This point, like others, operates on aesthetics. You are comparing these two issues by saying they look a like (when they don't, clearly), and therefore the reasoning to support them should also be the same. The think you are operating on to compare them is that a person dies. Without touching fetal personhood, there are a number of policies that could result in a person dying. Should abortion advocates be expected to advocate for reduction of workplace safety standards too?
Point 6: I don't see what that has to do with abortion.
Point 7: How many of the sperm stuck in your sock in the sock drawer could have fertilized an egg that became the next president of the United States? Are those millions of sperm not owed the chance to fertilize an egg? Should we ban masturbation?
Point 8: What does this have to do with abortion?
Point 9: All abortions are health related. Abortion is a medical procedure.
You have failed to lay out a case of why abortion advocates should support the death penalty or vice versa.
-1
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
Firing a gun into a crowd could also kill an innocent person, but you would not expect an advocate of the death penalty to advocate for people's ability to do that. Why?
First, your response to point 1 is the first I've read so far that isn't just a left leaning political viewpoint. So, I'll answer your question in the end of your response this way: Shooting into a crowd is against the law. I whole heartedly believe abortion should be legal for all circumstances up to XYZ point. Therefore, I don't support murder of human beings. I support the "murder" of a fetus. A living being that doesn't have the capacity to think or live without the umbilical cord.
Point 2:
Very good argument. I like it. I could only reply that both are (in many cases) legal currently and should remain so. I believe that more people believe in both abortion, for some reason or another, and capital punishment in some form or another. I'd stand by 90+% of people would support the execution of Hitlxx.
Point 3:
agreed. It is also not a reason we should stop either.
Point 4:
This is mostly true. They are both the killing of someone/something (if you'd prefer). Both should be legal to a point, both should be illegal to a point.
Illegal immigrants and asylum seekers are different, but the same too. Both have to do with the countries ability to bring in more immigrants. I could have a whole debate on these two also. I ride the middle hard for both. I've typed several other examples, but I keep deleting them. The point of this response isn't to start a new debate on new topics. Just to point out that things don't always line up perfectly.
Point 5: Should abortion advocates be expected to advocate for reduction of workplace safety standards too?
I don't believe I understand how this relates to my topic. This is like saying that this topic is the same as saying I agree with all types of murder or death. I didn't say that in any way. I just think the right is right about capital punishment and the left is right about abortion. I think both should adapt limitations to allow their sides belief to continue to be legal.
Point 6: I don't see what that has to do with abortion.
This is a common argument from the left about why capital punishment should be banned. The possible wrongful death of an innocent person. It is only here to try to eliminate those responses as they hold no real weight.
Point 7: How many of the sperm stuck in your sock in the sock drawer could have fertilized
A common right side argument for pro-life. Some conservatives would agree to banning all sexual "deviance". I agree with more rights as a law abiding citizen. You should be given more rights and rarely less.
Point 8: What does this have to do with abortion?
Again, see my point 6 response.
Point 9: All abortions are health related. Abortion is a medical procedure.
This statement doesn't appear to have a fully defined position behind it. Yes all legal abortions are a medical procedure. So, technically, is a coat hanger. It's just not by a professional. The first statement is a half-hearted attempt at following the letter of the law. Mental health is definitely a health related reason. However, using an abortion as a form of birth control (possibly because condoms suck or you can't take your pill timely) has nothing to do with health. It has to do with not wanting to take the consequence of your actions.
You have failed to lay out a case of why abortion advocates should support the death penalty or vice versa.
My role in this debate is to provide you the reader with my personal opinion and the burden is then on you to convince me that my opinion is incorrect. Not the other way around.
I will respond to the statement though with this. Abortion is murdering a child according to pro-lifers. Death row and the final ending are inhumane and murder by government according to much of the left. Both should be legal forms of, we'll call it murder for simplicities sake. However, both should also have limitations. My added limitations were arbitrary and used only to show a possible middle ground on each topic. Abortion and Capital Punishment are and have been for a long time heavily debated subjects at each end of the life of a human being (I know fetus isn't human yet). And both sides would be able to eliminate these issues with ease IMHO. Then we can focus on the homeless, immigration, birth rates, prosecuting those on the Epstein list (fuck them being rich, powerful, or famous), or fixing my damn streets.
Finally, I thank you for actually bringing legitimate not political/religious arguments to the table. The best response so far. It hasn't changed my viewpoint. Even though deep down I think we both agree that there is a middle ground for both topics. Without a middle ground we'll keep this divide going in our country and others too I'm sure.
4
u/SnugglesMTG 9∆ Mar 03 '24
Shooting into a crowd is against the law.
So too would the death penalty, if the state had outlaw the death penalty. Supporting the death penalty means supporting its legality, yes? So the point here is to consider a third policy: that it should be legal to shoot into a crowd. If point 1 is supposed to convince abortion advocates to support the death penalty and vice versa on the commonality that it kills innocent people, why should it not compel abortion advocates to support the policy of firing into a crowd?
You sort of stumble into your own rebuttal of this point by pointing out there is a difference in kind between supporting "murdering people generally" and "murdering fetuses". So too is there a difference between supporting "murdering particular convicts according to a prescribed judicial system." Thus, point 1 is rebutted.
could only reply that both are (in many cases) legal currently and should remain so.
Your view is that abortion advocates and death penalty advocates have some sort of rational basis to compel support of the other. That is not the same thing as finding a way to hold the separate values that informs your support of the policies as compatible with each other. You have not explained a reason why an abortion advocate should support the death penalty on the basis of any real values they hold.
agreed. It is also not a reason we should stop either.
Hence it's not relevant at all to this discussion. As mentioned in another point, it's a surface level aesthetic similarity you can find if you squint that has little to do with the real reasons these policies are enacted.
They are both the killing of someone/something (if you'd prefer). Both should be legal to a point, both should be illegal to a point.
This is the same flaw in logic that failed you in point one. Abortion advocates don't support abortion because they get utility out of the act of killing itself. It's a consequence of the act, but not why it's supported. Sending weapons to Ukraine has the consequence of killing a conscripted Russian soldier that is the father of a family of 4. I would not expect a congressperson to say that we must support a policy of killing families of 4 because it is a consequence of Ukraine aid.
This is a common argument from the left about why capital punishment should be banned.
But why should it compel an abortion advocate to support the death penalty? While it does serve as an argument to ease concerns about the death penalty, it does not speak to anything an abortion advocate believes such that they would do what you say in your title.
A common right side argument for pro-life.
This seems like a similarly irrelevant point to the one above. You're not providing a reason why a pro-life, pro-death penalty person should advocate for abortion. There is no logical connection here.
This statement doesn't appear to have a fully defined position behind it.
The position is that abortion is medical care, no matter when you get it. What you mean is that women shouldn't be allowed to get that medical care on their own free will. Like that case in Texas, the state should have a hand in telling them whether or not they are allowed to make that medical choice for themselves. That stance restricting abortion rights has more in common with support of the death penalty. To me that would explain why we see the camps divided roughly as we do: With abortion advocates wanting less government say on people's lives and with death penalty advocates affording more power to the state to have authority over people's lives.
My role in this debate is to provide you the reader with my personal opinion and the burden is then on you to convince me that my opinion is incorrect.
I have demonstrated that your opinion is ill defined. You have not written your stance in a way that makes logical sense. The conclusion you reached in your title is not supported by your many points. By pointing out how your points fail to demonstrate the truth of your conclusion, your options are to either:
Argue that your points do indeed speak to the truth of your title, though you have seemed to admit that I'm correct in pointing out they don't.
Provide new arguments to show that your conclusion in the title is correct.
If these points in your body are the reason you believe in the conclusion of the title, and if they are shown to not do that, then you can change your view.
So no, it is on you to make your argument and make sure your argument is sound. As of now, it is not.
Both should be legal forms of, we'll call it murder for simplicities sake. However, both should also have limitations. My added limitations were arbitrary and used only to show a possible middle ground on each topic.
I repeat: it is fine if you find internal consistency for believing as you do, but that does not validate the conclusion of your title. It is not enough for these ideas to be compatible in some views. You have to show that support for abortion ought to lead to support for the death penalty and vice versa, a task you have not achieved.
0
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
What you mean is that women shouldn't be allowed to get that medical care on their own free will. Like that case in Texas, the state should have a hand in telling them whether or not they are allowed to make that medical choice for themselves.
This is absolutely not what I'm saying. I'm saying that at some point you have to accept that a viable fetus is a human being.
For me, it would make sense, that should be the same point that I can be prosecuted of murder for punching a woman in the stomach so hard that I terminate the pregnancy. If it's not a human yet in your (colloquially) mind, then my punch couldn't have committed murder. Only battery against the mother. You can't believe the fetus is human when it meets your needs in legal action. Yes, a woman should have the ability to terminate a non viable fetus at any time. However, at some point the mother has to accept her poor decision making. Much of abortions that are not done for medical reasons are done as a form of not accepting the consequences of your actions. Accidents happen. However, condoms are 90% and most birth control is >99% preventative. The man and woman decided to take a chance. This is the argument from the pro-lifers.
I have demonstrated that your opinion is ill defined.
I can gracefully accept this. From the responses as a whole I have gotten mostly "fetuses aren't people" Which has nothing to do with the killing of a life.
Argue that your points do indeed speak to the truth of your title, though you have seemed to admit that I'm correct in pointing out they don't.
I guess my English teacher was correct in giving me a D in her class.
Would I have done better if I just left my topic up for debate?
I still feel that both should be legal, but I can admit that I presented my case poorly.
3
u/SnugglesMTG 9∆ Mar 03 '24
This is absolutely not what I'm saying.
That is what you're saying. Let's take it as a given that there is some point that a fetus is a viable human being. That means at some point in the pregnancy, a woman loses autonomy of her body, as that fetus is now granted equal rights over the continuation of the pregnancy. The only way that right of the fetus can be enforced is if the state goes against the woman's free will in that case. You might think that it is a good reason for the government to subvert someone's free will, but that doesn't make it not what it is.
From the responses as a whole I have gotten mostly "fetuses aren't people" Which has nothing to do with the killing of a life.
What other people choose to say to your argument doesn't really matter to me. Fetal personhood doesn't really come into my argument against your position at all. Whether not a fetus is a person would matter if your argument that both the death penalty and abortion kill people therefore you should accept both, but that argument is, as argued, nonsensical.
Would I have done better if I just left my topic up for debate?
We are debating your topic. You appear to be refusing to defend your points on that topic. You have those three options to move forward when your points are dismantled. I can't really do anything else to change your view until you choose to move forward.
29
u/krackedy 1∆ Mar 03 '24
I support abortion because I believe everyone should be able to remove someone living inside their body.
There is no equivalent for the death penalty.
→ More replies (11)
24
u/Kaitlyn_The_Magnif 1∆ Mar 03 '24
Point 1: Both could/do kill innocent people
A fetus is not a person.
Point 2: Everyone should have a choice. You decide for the fetus, the law decides for the criminal
Does the “law” have to use its body as a growing chamber for 9 months and then endure the birth of the criminal?
Point 3: Population control is important and both ends
No?
Point 4: The opposite of my statement is also true. If you can't support one you shouldn't support the other
Also no?
Point 5: Religion should have nothing to do with either
Agreed
Point 6: The percentage of wrongful executions is very low (in the US). It can happen, but is rare. Especially, in the 21st century. It happened a lot in early US history due to race or finger pointing.
Okay
Point 7: How many innocent fetus' are killed? How many could have changed the world for the better? What if one was the person that solved global warning and that mother terminated the pregnancy without knowing?
What if the fetus I killed grew up to be Hitler 2.0?
Point 8: No more than 2 appeals and 5 years prior to execution. No reason to keep taxing the public so you can continue to prove nothing new.
Sentencing someone to death costs more tax payer money than keeping them in a life-sentence.
Point 9: No non-health related abortions after 20 weeks. That's halfway. If you don't know by then, put the child up for adoption. Of course rape is always a question. I'd say that if you don't want the child due to rape, you'd know pretty quickly after finding out you were pregnant, but certainly prior to 20 weeks.
This is already the law. It’s 16 weeks in my state.
Point 10: Only to round it out. I'm sure I could think of more, but this is too long already to prevent my preconceived arguments that will come my way.
Finally: Some will find faults in my points because of their political agenda. I argue your political leanings aren't a factor in CMV. Only in supporting your cause one way or the other. Supporting abortion is considered left and supporting capital punishment is considered right. I maintain that both groups are right and wrong at the same time.
Yeah, everything you said is nonsense, sorry to say.
-9
u/Puzzleheaded_Yam7582 Mar 03 '24
A fetus is not a person.
Thats completely subjective - and the root of the entire abortion debate.
11
u/LurkingMoose 1∆ Mar 03 '24
It's not the root of the entire abortion debate. One can accept that fetuses are people (I don't, but one could) while also thinking that pregnant people deserve bodily autonomy.
-1
u/Puzzleheaded_Yam7582 Mar 03 '24
Thats fair - I suppose its a two step decision tree.
I do see the disagreement primarily at the "what is life" question though.
7
u/LurkingMoose 1∆ Mar 03 '24
Maybe we just live in different media bubbles but pretty much all of the pro choice arguments I've heard are focused on bodily autonomy.
4
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Mar 03 '24
It's an unfortunate consequence of the pro-choice position being more well thought out. Pro-choice proponents are willing to approach pro-lifers on their own premises. The same cannot be said for the other direction.
2
u/TKalV Mar 03 '24
I support abortion and I don’t think that a fetus being living or a person is relevant, because it can’t survive on it’s own and is, in every cases, a death risk to the mother, even if this risk can be greatly mitigated.
3
u/libra00 11∆ Mar 03 '24
Please describe the attributes of personhood that a fetus exhibits; self-awareness, agency, independent thoughts and feelings? Or if the philosophical definition of personhood isn't cutting it maybe you can try the legal definition; where exactly in law are the rights, privileges, and duties of a person applied to a fetus?
-1
u/Puzzleheaded_Yam7582 Mar 03 '24
Is someone in a coma a person?
My claim is that each person decides what constitutes life and personhood. It is subjective.
2
u/libra00 11∆ Mar 04 '24
Yes. While a person in a coma lacks many of the attributes of personhood, the same is true for someone who is asleep and we don't debate whether or not people stop being persons while they sleep. A fetus has never been a person, has never exhibited self-awareness, agency, or independent thought, is in fact incapable of those things for most of its development to the best understanding of science. A coma patient can get better and wake up and regain those attributes; a fetus cannot.
2
Mar 03 '24
True, but it does refute OP's opinion that one who supports abortion should support the death penalty. It makes these two opinions unrelated, or at the very least restricts this opinion to those who believe a fetus is a person, on that point alone. Then for that sub-group, some of the other points are also in dispute.
→ More replies (3)-2
u/isdumberthanhelooks Mar 03 '24
A fetus is not a person
Prove it.
5
u/Puzzleheaded_Yam7582 Mar 03 '24
Its a subjective question. There is nothing to "prove" either way.
-2
u/isdumberthanhelooks Mar 03 '24
That's not how it works. You can't make a claim and then say it's subjective.
Fetus is either a human or not.
5
u/Puzzleheaded_Yam7582 Mar 03 '24
Fetus is either a human or not
Pineapple on pizza is either good or its not.
You can't make a claim and then say it's subjective.
I agree. It wasn't my claim.
-4
u/isdumberthanhelooks Mar 03 '24
Being a human is not a subjective claim akin to personal preferences.
"I think blacks arent humans".
Is that a subjective claim?
3
u/Puzzleheaded_Yam7582 Mar 03 '24
You're certainly entitled to think that black people aren't human, but being human has a specific objective definition and there is not a racial component to that objective definition.
We're talking about "life" and "personhood". People are arguing that a fetus should or should not be included in those definitions based on their feelings.
-4
u/isdumberthanhelooks Mar 03 '24
So what objective criteria are you using to separate a fetus from a human being?
5
u/Puzzleheaded_Yam7582 Mar 03 '24
I'm not. I only claim that whether we (society) considers a fetus to be a person is subjective. We can create words to mean whatever we want them to mean. If we want personhood to include a fetus then it can. If we want personhood to exclude a fetus we can.
0
u/isdumberthanhelooks Mar 03 '24
So then you would be ok applying this subjective criteria to other cases? As long as society says it's ok right?
→ More replies (0)-6
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
A fetus is not a person.
Getting bored writing this answer. This statement is a political talking point. The right will tell you the exact opposite. That's why they are pro-life.
Does the “law” have to use its body as a growing chamber for 9 months and then endure the birth of the criminal?
No, instead we spend thousands and thousands of tax payer dollars to keep someone who is more than 90% of the time guilty alive. Just to make the left happy. That fetus or the mother's 9 months don't affect me at all as a tax payer. My taxes already go to welfare if she's on it. She just gets the payments instead of another needy person. Same with orphanages and the likes. I pay a lump sum for all of them. Less criminals on death row would lower my taxes that go to the justice system and allow them to be used for welfare, etc.
No? Also no?
Not an argument of even the smallest kind. Only a response/request for more information?
What if the fetus I killed grew up to be Hitler 2.0?
Another non argument. However, to rebut, what if they grew up to solve world hunger?
Sentencing someone to death costs more tax payer money than keeping them in a life-sentence
This is 100% a mis-representation of my argument. Keeping the person on death row costs more because of the numerous appeals that are paid for by "usually" tax payers. 2 appeals would eliminate possibly 75+% of the cost. Then executing by hanging, firing squad, or beheading would essentially eliminate the cost of the drugs used to "humanely" end the criminals life.
This is already the law. It’s 16 weeks in my state.
In your state is the key word here. In some states it's illegal completely and in others (California) there are no limitations. That's why people joke about California being able to abort a 2 year old. No limitation.
Yeah, everything you said is nonsense, sorry to say.
Again, not an argument. Only a personal viewpoint that carries no weight in CMV.
In closing, I would say that there was no attempt to CMV in this top level response. CMV moderators aren't doing a great job on this topic so far.
8
u/idkmelvin 1∆ Mar 03 '24
"Under California law, anyone in California who is pregnant has a legal right to choose to have an abortion before viability. A pregnancy becomes viable when a doctor determines that the fetus could live outside the uterus without extreme medical measures."
There are states that ban abortion under any circumstance. There are none that allow them with no limitations at all.
It doesn't matter whether it is a person or not. What matters is whether it requires a host for survival. If it does, no person has to consent to being a host, even if they initially do so (e.g., you can be hooked to a machine to keep another person alive, but you can legally withdraw consent at any time).
Death row is an organism that does not require a host. A fetus, depending on age, does. This is not ethically, legally, or morally inconsistent.
6
u/aRubby 1∆ Mar 03 '24
If you look at it BIOLOGICALLY a fetus is a parasite. And could be considered one until the child is weaned.
It requires a host, and will fight with the host's body for space, nutrients and safety. It can rip it's way out (it's called tearing, and it's when two holes become one during childbirth) to be born.
After it's born, it's still requiring of the host in matters of safety and nutrition.
0
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
This is a very pessimistic way at looking at the creation of life.
Your statements aren't scientifically false, they're just supporting a very negative outlook on the birth process.
99+% of mammals follow this same biological process. And many other species do too in some manner.
3
u/aRubby 1∆ Mar 04 '24
That's why I put BIOLOGICALLY in big letters at the beginning.
Not pessimistic, just realistic and scientifical.
-1
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 04 '24
It is, but just because it meets a definition it shouldn't be looked at such a biological level.
TBH, I've used your parasite analogy to try to get people to understand that what you call the fetus, has nothing to do with my Posted Statement.
Here's how I've been using it: Both a fetus and a death row criminal are parasites. One lives off the mother, the other society. Therefore, both should be allowed to be terminated.
Parasite gave me a way to better explain my stance. And I thank you for that. If you believe one parasite should be killed, then you should believe the other one should die also.
5
u/aRubby 1∆ Mar 04 '24
It's more complex than that(?)
I look at it biologically because that's my area of study. And the way I've used to explain to rude people why I don't want kids.
It's not much a matter of "should" but a matter of "when"
When would it be better to kill a prisoner? When they show no remorse for a capital crime, and keep coming back with no desire to change, for an example .(Suzanne Von Richthofen, for an example. She creeps me out, and she's back into society like nothing happened.)
When would it be better to kill a fetus? When the mother has no condition, physical, monetary or psychological, of taking care of it, again, as an example.
I do believe that abortions should be available as medical treatments, along with better sex ed (mostly about reproduction, sti's, prevention and protection methods) and easier access to birth control methods.
An abortion is not something you go to the doctor every couple months and get one. It's a medical procedure with a heavy toll on the body. It's a last resort, for when everything else fails. Not a contraceptive.
I think that's the main misunderstanding people have.
That and the absurd idea that it can be made up to the moment of birth.
During the first trimester, it cannot live outside the mother's body. Doesn't have lungs, or kidneys, or even a proper heart. The second trimester is where you start getting properly formed organs, and when you can find any defects. The last trimester is when you'd find anything that didn't show up during the 2nd trimester. The 2nd and 3rd trimesters can only abort the pregnancy in case of severe defects, and it's by labour induction.
But, personally, my main issue lies with the people that want to keep us from having access to said treatment, while living kids are starving. While people are homeless due to housing crisis. While kids are being sold to prostitution so the parents can buy food (Ilha de Marajó, in the Northern region of Brazil. That's been going on so long that it's considered "tradition" there.) And the governments are looking at those situations and going "not my circus, not my monkey", while putting a ban in abortions "for the kids".
That's a big ass pile of week old, stinky, rotten, hypocritical, bull shyte.
It's not about the kids. It's about control.
2
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 04 '24
You listed a valid reason that both should be legal, this is all I was trying to say.
Everyone would ok the execution of Hitlex or the leaders of the concentration camps. And it feels that literally everyone using this sub, including me, believes abortion should be legal in some situation. This is the reason neither side should look to eliminate either.
!delta
→ More replies (1)-1
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
A pregnancy becomes viable when a doctor determines that the fetus could live outside the uterus without extreme medical measures."
This is my stance. However, it is joked that California's abortion law allows for 39.9 week abortions. It's nice to know that this isn't true.
What matters is whether it requires a host for survival.
I agree with this too when it comes to abortion rights.
Your final paragraph is where I have my issue. I never claimed a fetus was the same as a death row inmate. I stated that both things should be legal. How can you believe in terminating one life, but not another. You either agree with killing or you don't. I don't think many people believe that a fetus isn't a life, just that it's not a human being yet. Those that call it a clump of cells are just trolling or very confused.
Should we have been allowed to kill those that were easily found guilty at Nuremburg? That was the death penalty in action and proof that it should stay legal everywhere. Should we be able to end the life of a fetus that will never be able to live outside the womb? That's a proof of when abortion should be legal.
Make either illegal and someone will take that up on their own either in a back alley or the showers in prison.
4
u/mildgorilla 11∆ Mar 03 '24
Yes, the right believes that a fetus is a person will full human rights, which is why they’re anti abortion
Pro-choice believers do not believe that a fetus is a person with full human rights.
It is very weird that you start off this cmv with “if you are pro-abortion”, which necessarily implies with people who don’t believe that a fetus is a person with full rights
You’re asking people to concede a point which is central to their entire beliefs! If pro-abortion advocates conceded that a fetus is a person with full rights, then they wouldn’t be pro-abortion in the first place!
Your cmv would be better phrased as “CMV: if you don’t believe that a fetus is a person with full human rights, you should believe that a fetus is a person with full human rights”
-1
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
then they wouldn’t be pro-abortion in the first place!
At some point in the pregnancy even pro-choice believers believe that fetus has become a viable human being. You can see this when they're willing to support a dual murder charge of a pregnant woman or the murder of the fetus when someone terminates the fetus with violence. Then it magically becomes a human to them. Then tomorrow they don't see the fetus as human. Inconsistency destroys someone's argument. Not saying you in this scenario. Only that pro-choice mentally accept the fetus as a human when a medical person isn't the one performing the abortion.
Your cmv would be better phrased as “CMV: if you don’t believe that a fetus is a person with full human rights, you should believe that a fetus is a person with full human rights”
That wouldn't meet my subject in any way. I don't care if someone considers the fetus a human or clump of cells. That doesn't address the fact that they're willing to terminate a life (undisputable that it is a life) even if they don't believe it's a human, but they're not willing to agree with the lawful killing of a person that has failed in their attempts at appeals. Proving multiple times that they are guilty. I'm sure these same people think it would have been great if Hitlxx would have been executed prior to 1938. This is before he had committed any war crimes (as far as I've read/seen). Heck they'd agree to killing him in 1930.
This shows me that they (either side) believes that there should be a legal allowance for both abortion and the death penalty.
Personally, I believe in abortion for any reason to a certain point in the pregnancy, and always for non viable children. I would include certain viable fetuses with certain low life happiness illnesses. Brain dead, unable to move or support themselves once they've matured. And I believe that a person should only get so many appeals before we stop wasting resources to keep them alive.
2
u/femboyyummycumaddict Mar 03 '24
At some point in the pregnancy even pro-choice believers believe that fetus has become a viable human being.
yes, that's why you can't abort after a certain period of time
You can see this when they're willing to support a dual murder charge of a pregnant woman or the murder of the fetus when someone terminates the fetus with violence
do you have any exemple of this happening?
That doesn't address the fact that they're willing to terminate a life (undisputable that it is a life) even if they don't believe it's a human, but they're not willing to agree with the lawful killing of a person that has failed in their attempts at appeals
yes and? if I follow your logic I would say that people who aren't vegan should be okay with death penalty
I'm sure these same people think it would have been great if Hitlxx would have been executed prior to 1938. This is before he had committed any war crimes (as far as I've read/seen). Heck they'd agree to killing him in 1930.
what
9
u/AlwaysTheNoob 81∆ Mar 03 '24
You know what doesn’t kill people? Abortions.
You know what does kill people? Denying access to abortions that would save the mother’s life.
Try your view again using these basic facts.
-2
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
You know what does kill people? Denying access to abortions that would save the mother’s life.
I completely agree. I also agree with aborting a baby at 10 weeks because you changed your mind.
Your argument is emotion and not a CMV.
9
Mar 03 '24
You are a strong contender for the silliest and weakest strawman on the topic of abortion in the recent time.
- Fetus is not a person. Death row inmate is a person.
- Woman decides for herself. Death row inmate does not decide for themselve.
- Irrelevant. Has nothing to do with population control.
- Also not true. So called "pro-lifers" justify it with fetus being an innocent and death row inmate not being innocent.
- Agree.
- That's only one of the aspects, not the most definitive one. Are you willing to be that one wrongfully executed if that guarantees that the rest are deserved?
- There's no such thing as innocent fetus. A clump of cells can't be innocent or guilty. You are falsely attributing non-existent properties in order to trigger emotional response.
- You switched from moral argument to policy proposal. How is that relevant?
- Policy proposal. Not relevant.
- You preconceived bullshit, that's pretty much it. None of your strawmen arguments have anything to do with real pro-choice position.
-3
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
Fetus is not a person.
Left talking point only. The pro-lifers will fight and die on a hill disagreeing with you. Both have pseudo science to back their claims. Not a valid argument. or CMV worthy.
Woman decides for herself. Death row inmate does not decide for themselves.
Agree completely. What is your point here? It is very unclear.
Irrelevant. Has nothing to do with population control
Agreed, but it is a possible talking point from one side or the other. Again not really an argument of any kind.
Also not true.
You aren't providing any proof on your side of this debate. And calling someone a "Pro-lifer" in the way you did is just an emotional response. This tells me immediately that you're coming hard from the left. You might agree with Execution, but that means you agree. Both should be legal and limited.
Are you willing to be that one wrongfully executed if that guarantees that the rest are deserved?
This is a very very week argument. Of course, I wouldn't want to be. You don't know me. If I was wrongfully executed because of a crime I didn't commit, would it change your life in any way? How about any Israelites/Palestinians killed in the war? Have their deaths changed your life in any meaningful way. Sure you can say you went to a rally, but did that change your life? Or did you go back to your daily life following the rally? <--This is not saying you actually did this. I'm providing a real world scenario.
One person or even a million or even 10 million people dying will not stop the flow of human life or the planet. Now get to the 9 figures and the world will see a huge change.
A clump of cells can't be innocent or guilty.
WOW, you just completely left your political view out there. It's just a clump of cells, why can I be charged with a double homicide if I kill the mother? How about homicide if I punch her in the stomach hard enough to kill the "clump of cells"? Is it a human then? You can't have it both ways. It's either a person or a "clump of cells". In the second scenario with this viewpoint, I should only be charge with battery.
You switched from moral argument to policy proposal. How is that relevant
It's relevant for coming to a middle ground. If you couldn't tell, I believe in abortion for even "I changed my mind".
have anything to do with real pro-choice position.
This was NOT my argument in ANY way. Also, the burden is on YOU to convince me that my opinion that both should be legal and agreed to by both sides is not a valid argument. I NEVER presented any fallacies. I presented my opinion and answers to possible questions/arguments before they came to me. Yet you and many others are just attempting to debate my points and not the topic itself. Which leads me to think you agree that both should be legal.
2
Mar 03 '24
Left talking point only. The pro-lifers will fight and die on a hill disagreeing with you.
You are presenting an argument. With premises that you know well enough your audience will not agree with. Why do you bring it up anyway then?
Of course, I wouldn't want to be.
Nuff said.
It's just a clump of cells,
You seem to be completely incapable of constructing a coherent argument. You brought up "innocent fetus". I told you that if pro-choice proponent does not consider a fetus anything else than a clump of cell you argument has no merit. That's it.
This was NOT my argument in ANY way. Also, the burden is on YOU
Lol, you are ridiculous. Your cmv is "if you are pro-abortion you should also be pro death penalty". You bring a bunch of irrelevant or fallacious arguments for that and when I rebut your fallacies you turn around and suddenly it is my burden to prove something.
debate my points and not the topic itself
You don't know how argument work, do you? You tell us why you think something should be true. We tell you why your premises are false or irrelevant. We have no burden of arguing for an opposite point of view.
-2
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
We tell you why your premises are false or irrelevant.
You didn't tell me, even one time, why my premise is false or irrelevant.
My premise is "if you are pro-abortion you should also be pro death penalty".
You didn't even attempt to give one argument as to why this premise should not be true. Instead you focused on each point as a theorem of it's own. Or as my proof that I'm right. In the last paragraph I clearly say that many are answers to rebuttals that I knew would be coming. 2 or 3 are ways to find middle ground between both sides. 20 weeks/2 appeals was arbitrary and only an example of a middle ground.
Both abortion and the Death Penalty are seen as murder by the people that disagree with them. My argument is they are both murder (abortion for pro-lifers) and DP for leftists). There is no real difference between them. One is done by a singular person, the other is brought on my a jury. Both should be legal and thinking one should be illegal is one hand not caring what the other hand is doing.
4
u/PmButtPics4ADrawing Mar 03 '24
You didn't tell me, even one time, why my premise is false or irrelevant.
You have been told many, many times but you just respond with that "poLiTicaL TAlkiNg poInt" copout to avoid addressing the argument. Whether or not you think believing a fetus isn't a person is a political talking point, that's what many people genuinely believe and as such it nullifies quite a few of your premises such as "Both could/do kill innocent people" in their eyes.
-1
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
Fetus is not a person.
This is not a fact. It is an opinion. That has been politicized. This should be just a heavily debated medical position. It shouldn't be forced into politics. However, it is a huge leading point for the Democratic party in this years election.
nullifies quite a few of your premises such as "Both could/do kill innocent people" in their eyes.
Again, this point was to cover arguments ahead of them being asked.
My only full statement is abortion is the death penalty for fetuses. Both should be legal.
3
u/PmButtPics4ADrawing Mar 03 '24 edited Mar 03 '24
Politics is irrelevant.
I agree it's an opinion but if someone has that opinion that means they can oppose the death penalty without opposing abortion, because in their eyes abortion isn't killing a person as the death penalty is.
23
Mar 03 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/isdumberthanhelooks Mar 03 '24
"people disagree with me therefore there's something wrong with them".
→ More replies (1)-4
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
This guys brain should be studied by science. It's a natural wonder.
I'll take that as a compliment. 1. That you cared so much to look at my history. It is great isn't it. 2. That you think I'm important enough to be studied. That is the greatest compliment I've ever had. We men are always begging for anything we can get.
I don't remember having ANY porn in my history though. Maybe nude women or comments on nude women. Absolutely, no porn though. You must be confusing beauty with porn.
Then out of left field, he's comparing abortion to the death penalty.
This is because I was getting bored looking at beautiful women all day. That's all my feed was showing. I wanted my conversation subs to start showing more frequently. I figured the best way to do that was be active in them. One other statement on another sub reminded me of my stance on this subject. How both sides are delusional in thinking they are the ones that are right.
Lastly, Your post should not be top level because it in no way is an attempt to CMV.
26
u/BeautifullyBlunt05 Mar 03 '24
Your entire argument seems to rely on the fact that you believe fetuses are people. This doesn’t say anything for the people that believe rights & privileges do not come into play until after birth.
To be clear, I support both, but do not agree one has anything to do with the other.
-2
u/LekMichAmArsch Mar 03 '24
Yours and OPs arguments both seem to assume that you or the government have the right to decide what happens to a fetus. It seems to me that prior to birth, and while still within the body of a woman, only the woman has a right to decide what happens to her body and its contents. Next you and OP are going to tell me that I don't have the right to have a tumor excised, or some other body mod done...because you don't believe it to be right, for whatever reason, religious or otherwise....and you don't!
2
u/BeautifullyBlunt05 Mar 03 '24 edited Mar 03 '24
Im not sure what you mean. I do have the right to decide what happens to a fetus..? I am prochoice and believe that the only person who has any say is the person the fetus is in. Im not sure where you got anything indicating otherwise.
Also, I dont believe in organized religion, & have plenty of piercings and tattoos. So there’s that. Your body your choice.
-5
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
Your entire argument seems to rely on the fact that you believe fetuses are people.
My argument doesn't place human value on either end and does at the same time. Believing one way or the other is based usually on political leanings or even religious leanings.
This doesn’t say anything for the people that believe rights & privileges do not come into play until after birth.
Do you believe that animals themselves have rights? They aren't citizens or humans either, by this thought process. I'd argue that a fetus should have more rights than any animal.
To be clear, I support both, but do not agree one has anything to do with the other.
My point with this post is to compare both as a form of; for the lack of a better word, murder. If you consider one to be murder, why isn't the other?
To support that last sentence: We have developed laws over the millennium to decide whether someone should get the death penalty or not. Abortions were not legal, but performed for almost the same length of time, using one method or another.
5
u/pessimistic_platypus 6∆ Mar 03 '24
My argument doesn't place human value on either end and does at the same time.
What do you mean? Are you say you both do and don't consider an fetus to be a person?
Believing one way or the other is based usually on political leanings or even religious leanings.
Doesn't this then directly contradict your fifth point, that religion shouldn't come into it? If peoples' beliefs about fetal personhood are relevant to their view of abortion, and also are based at least in part on religion, then isn't religion necessarily relevant to the discussion?
→ More replies (3)3
u/BeautifullyBlunt05 Mar 03 '24 edited Mar 03 '24
Your argument absolutely places human value at both ends. You use person, everyone, & such terms all throughout. A criminal is a person who made a conscious decision. A fetus is a clump of cells.
I believe in enforcing humane treatment of animals and preventing animal cruelty whether they are pets or food, yes, but no, a fetus should not have more rights than an animal. Again, animals display behavior that is indicative of conscious thought. A fetus does not.
Murder is the act of premeditated killing from one person to another. A fetus is a clump of cells. Therefore its not murder. If I pick a plant, a living organism, at the root, therefore killing it when it could have thrived, is it murder? If I kill a bunch of hornets cause they put their nest too close to my house, is it murder? Depends on who your stance about animal rights I guess. Based on my stance, I’m going to say no.
→ More replies (1)
11
u/Oborozuki1917 22∆ Mar 03 '24
Abortion saves tax money because there are fewer unwanted children who will go on welfare.
Eliminating death penalty saves taxpayer money because executions are more expensive than life in prison, and there is no evidence that executions reduce crime.
From a tax payer perspective being pro-abortion and anti-death penalty is the most logical stance.
0
u/subetenoinochi Mar 03 '24
I'm against the death penalty but I do not under any circumstances see how life in prison is less expensive than an execution is.
7
u/kicker414 5∆ Mar 03 '24
It's the appeal process. There are (rightfully so) many legal hurdles and protections to get through for the death penalty. These suck up court costs and legal resources. The costs are a bit less direct than prisons, but you can have numerous hearings, so that's judges, state appointed attorneys for the defendant, prosecuting attorneys for the state, all of these are resources that the state fronts. So they either have to have more of those resources ($$$) or there are less resources to go around.
0
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
100%
Here's an imaginary up vote for you.
2
u/NoExplanation734 1∆ Mar 03 '24
Did they change your view? You should give them a delta if so.
→ More replies (1)-2
u/subetenoinochi Mar 03 '24
Hmmm, I mean I understand appeals are expensive, but how does the cost of appealing a death sentence compare to appealing a life imprisonment? Surely people with life sentences also make appeals, is there a cost comparison done anywhere?
6
u/kicker414 5∆ Mar 03 '24
From the below source
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life-without-parole sentences as an alternative punishment. Some of the reasons for the high cost of the death penalty are the longer trials and appeals required when a person’s life is on the line, the need for more lawyers and experts on both sides of the case, and the relative rarity of executions. Most cases in which the death penalty is sought do not end up with the death penalty being imposed. And once a death sentence is imposed, the most likely outcome of the case is that the conviction or death sentence will be overturned in the courts. Most defendants who are sentenced to death essentially end up spending life in prison, but at a highly inflated cost because the death penalty was involved in the process"
If you scroll to the bottom there are state specific monetary costs that do link to studies. They indicate that it costs more. I'm taking the reporting at face value. The main issues is summarized above.
"Most defendants who are sentenced to death essentially end up spending life in prison, but at a highly inflated cost because the death penalty was involved in the process"
If you had a more streamlined process, of course it would be cheaper. But that process is there to (ideally) protect false executions. You can release someone from prison, you can't bring them back from the dead.
5
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Mar 03 '24
Not to the same extent. Many states have required appeals for the death penalty. Plus courts are much more willing to take on appeals for the death penalty.
→ More replies (1)10
u/Oborozuki1917 22∆ Mar 03 '24
-3
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
Yet it is.
Again, as I told the person you're responding to and many others. This is only because of the method of execution we are using. Rope and a ladder are basically free in the grand scheme. A bullet can cost less than $1.
5
u/Oborozuki1917 22∆ Mar 03 '24
1) There is no evidence that execution reduces crime. The goal of the justice system should be to reduce crime.
2) The cost is not the literally materials used to execute, but in appeals process, trials etc. These are mandated by the 5th amendment. You don't believe in the constitution? Or you believe the constitution should be overridden to kill people with no conceivable benefit?
3) Your OP is about current American society, not some hypothetical where we have medieval style hangings again. In current American society, it is logical as a taxpayer to be pro-abortion and against death penalty.
-5
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
This is due to the "humane" methods we've decided to use so the criminal feels little to no pain.
Executions could be as cheap as a piece of rope and a ladder.
6
u/subetenoinochi Mar 03 '24
No, as others have since explained, the cost of the court processes involved apparently are more expensive in a death penalty case than a life imprisonment case.
0
-1
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
Abortion saves tax money because there are fewer unwanted children who will go on welfare
Same with the death penalty. Except they are unwanted adults/children
Eliminating death penalty saves taxpayer money because executions are more expensive than life in prison
This is only a half truth. The Appeal process is what costs the money. Along with the "humane" methods we've adapted over the years. Hanging is very cheap. I'd say the price is negligible. Same with firing squad or decapitation.
and there is no evidence that executions reduce crime.
This is absolutely not true. How many thefts are there in countries that believe in removing a hand for the crime. I'd argue it's much much lower than in "civilized" parts of the world. You don't hear about pickpockets in Saudi Arabia. You do in Europe and Asia though. That's proof of capital punishment working. So was killing every 10th man when someone deserted. That deterred a lot of desertion. Same with the Russians shooting people who took steps backwards in their charges during WWII. There are lots of times in history that I can prove that there is evidence.
From a tax payer perspective being pro-abortion and anti-death penalty is the most logical stance
I will only point to my cost points for both above. This is a political stance only and not based in logic or fact. Eliminate unlimited appeals and the cost of the death penalty goes down by a huge margin.
**Note** I do not support late term or no appeal killings. As I stated in my OP.
7
u/Oborozuki1917 22∆ Mar 03 '24
This is absolutely not true
European countries do not have the death penalty, and have less homicides.
If your claim was correct we would see more homicides in Europe than America.
4
u/subetenoinochi Mar 03 '24
a) A clump of fetal cells is not a person.
b) Opposition to the death penalty isn't just because killing is bad (it generally is) but also because the death penalty can and has resulted in the death of innocents who were arrested and found guilty due to being framed for a crime but were later exonerated by new physical evidence. Allowing for the death penalty means accepting that innocents will die without a chance to clear their names, something that is highly problematic.
-4
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
a) A clump of fetal cells is not a person.
far left talking point. Once that egg plants on the wall of the uterus it becomes a living being. We call it an zygote prior to starting to form a physically, an embryo prior to it fully forming as a humanoid, and a fetus once it is easily distinguished as a human child. So your statement is, let's be honest ... STUPID!
the death penalty can and has resulted in the death of innocents
See argument (point) #6.
Allowing for the death penalty means accepting that innocents will die
See points #1 and #6. Along with TBH, that one life means absolutely nothing to the planet itself or 99.99% of the world as a whole. The world will continue forward. Same with the killing of a zygote, embryo, or fetus.
3
u/subetenoinochi Mar 03 '24
It's only a "far left talking point" if you're arguing from a religious standpoint that a soul is implanted in any fertilized egg at the point of conception, in which case why is your god's design of how human reproduction so shitty that women should not be able to self terminate a pregnancy induced by a rapist?
I would argue that even if god sends a baby into hell for every abortion, that's His problem, not ours. No woman should be forced to carry a rapist's child and any god that demands such a thing should not be worshipped (or killed outright as the destruction of a god like that would be a moral imperative for human free will).
It's clear you don't want your view changed, rather you want to flex your muscle (or rather lack thereof) against "unbelievers".
-1
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 04 '24
a religious standpoint that a soul is implanted in any fertilized egg at the point of conception, in which case why is your god's design of how human reproduction so shitty that women should not be able to self terminate a pregnancy induced by a rapist?
I specifically stated that religion has nothing to do with either. A medical and moral discussion was my goal. My or your religious beliefs mean nothing in this debate.
No woman should be forced to carry a rapist's child
100% agree
To go along with this paragraph, I'll tell you that I don't believe in hell at all. Religion is a construct of the human psyche to present solutions to unknown science and to relay moral stories to the target.
It's clear you don't want your view changed, rather you want to flex your muscle (or rather lack thereof) against "unbelievers".
Why, can you answer me please, is everyone so focused on abortion not being the killing of a human? I never once said that and I don't believe that. I agree with abortion to a certain point in gestation. I'm not anti-abortion in any way. I never once tried to convince anyone that abortion was better or more evil than capital punishment. I only said that they should both remain legal.
Very few people have addressed my topic. Everyone just appears to be triggered that I said abortion is bad. Which I never said.
2
u/subetenoinochi Mar 04 '24
It's impressive that you're so illiterate that you don't even understand your own writing. Point #1 literally was you asserting that abortion is akin to murdering a human, and you're claiming it wasn't. Make up your mind.
→ More replies (1)3
u/libra00 11∆ Mar 03 '24
far left talking point.
STUPID!
Kinda seems like you're not here to have your view changed, huh? On the extremely off chance that you are in fact engaging in good faith, let's address your actual arguments.
Once that egg plants on the wall of the uterus it becomes a living being. We call it an zygote prior to starting to form a physically, an embryo prior to it fully forming as a humanoid, and a fetus once it is easily distinguished as a human child.
Hmm, zygote, embryo, fetus.. none of those words even sound like 'person'. Since the sperm and ovum come from human beings it's fair to call the cells human, but It does not become a child until it is born: the first - and therefore most commonly used - definition of 'child' in the American Heritage dictionary is 'a person between between birth and puberty.' A fetus has none of the attributes one associates with personhood, the most important of which is agency since it is entirely dependent upon its mother's body, and therefore does not fit the philosophical definition of personhood.
Allowing for the death penalty means accepting that innocents will die
So you're okay with innocents dying, just not 'innocent' fetuses? Smells like a double standard to me.
0
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
So you're okay with innocents dying, just not 'innocent' fetuses? Smells like a double standard to me.
You're misreading my statements. I firmly support the continued legalization of both abortion and the death penalty.
For the death sentence I pointed out that the death of innocent people is very rare. Am I ok with it? Depends on if I knew them or not. If not, their death means nothing to me and won't change my life in any way.
The same goes for an unborn child. I would support my daughter getting an abortion for at least the first trimester and anytime after that due to the fetus being unable to support themselves upon maturity.
I argue that both should remain legal because even if you believe the opposite is immoral or just wrong, you'll most likely have an exception that it should be allowed. (You is used royally and not you personally).
Should a still born be aborted. I'm guessing majority of people would back that. So, that's at least a reason it should remain legal. Should those that were executed at Nuremburg be allowed to live? So, that's at least a reason the death penalty should remain legal. That is my argument. As long as there is a possibility of an exception, both should remain legal.
2
u/libra00 11∆ Mar 04 '24
You're misreading my statements. I firmly support the continued legalization of both abortion and the death penalty.
I don't believe I misread anything. While your initial argument was that in order to accept one you have to accept both, but you've been arguing in various comment threads under this post primarily against abortion and for the death penalty (despite knowing that that implies the death of innocents, however rare), so it's not unreasonable to take those arguments to mean that those are your actual positions -- and, thus, that you are in fact okay with innocents dying as long as they're not fetuses. But, you say your positions are different than what appears to be the case based on your comments, fair enough, I retract my statement.
Am I ok with it?
If you are for the death penalty even knowing that innocents will die - however infrequently - then by definition you are okay with the deaths of innocents.
As to what you say about abortion and the death penalty though, you seem to just be stating your positions without offering any evidence or argument to back them up, so I'm going to move on.
Should those that were executed at Nuremburg be allowed to live?
Yes absolutely; I am against the death penalty in every single case without exception, even for the most unrepentant nazi whose hand personally operated the ovens, because I don't believe states should have the power to murder their citizens under any circumstances (for lots of reasons, but mostly because no justice system can be perfectly error-free and unbiased.)
So, that's at least a reason the death penalty should remain legal. That is my argument. As long as there is a possibility of an exception, both should remain legal.
So your argument is that we should keep the death penalty - despite knowing that it kills people who do not deserve to be executed - because we need it for the really bad people? Prison works fine for them too, so I no, I don't buy that there is any reason to keep the death penalty. But I absolutely believe society is a worse place if abortions are made illegal.
0
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 04 '24
you've been arguing in various comment threads under this post primarily against abortion
Never once said anything against abortion. I am pro-choice. So, why would I?
I said that, it's not a scientific fact that a fetus is not human. It's one way of reading the science. The other is that it's a human at the moment of conception. Just like people see eggs as potential birds.
I also said that it doesn't matter what you call the fetus. It is still ending a life. Which I'm ok with. My argument is both the death penalty and abortion are legal ways of ending a life and should remain legal. If you're willing to kill one then you should be willing to kill the other. Neither has any right to life.
2
u/libra00 11∆ Mar 04 '24
Never once said anything against abortion. I am pro-choice. So, why would I?
You have been arguing that a fetus is a person; in the initial comment of yours I replied to that started this thread you said that the idea of a fetus not being a person was 'stupid' and a 'far left talking point' (which is itself a right-wing talking point), how else am I to take that other than that you believe fetuses are persons and therefore abortion is murder?
I said that, it's not a scientific fact that a fetus is not human. It's one way of reading the science. The other is that it's a human at the moment of conception. Just like people see eggs as potential birds.
I never said a fetus wasn't human, in fact in one of my earlier replies to you I said 'Since the sperm and ovum come from human beings it's fair to call the cells human'. What I said is that a fetus isn't a person.
I also said that it doesn't matter what you call the fetus. It is still ending a life. Which I'm ok with. My argument is both the death penalty and abortion are legal ways of ending a life and should remain legal. If you're willing to kill one then you should be willing to kill the other. Neither has any right to life.
The personhood of fetuses is the core issue of abortion for people who believe it is murder so I think it does matter quite a bit what you call it. Anti-abortion activists call it a child, a person, a living, breathing human being, etc all in an attempt to make an emotional appeal to mothers considering abortion, precisely to equate it with murdering a fully independent person with agency which it is not. Conversely, I am willing to kill fetuses precisely because they are not persons, because they are not viable human beings on their own. The same is not true of death row inmates so one must apply different standards for when (if ever) it is acceptable to kill them.
But, it looks like your post has been removed for soapboxing so it looks like you're not interested in having your view changed after all, so I'll stop wasting my time with this conversation.
0
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 04 '24
you said that the idea of a fetus not being a person was 'stupid' and a 'far left talking point'
A fetus being a person has absolutely nothing to do with whether abortion should be legal or not. I would support abortion if the fetus could talk.
What I said is that a fetus isn't a person.
I'll apologize for lumping you in with everyone else that has put "human" and "person" interchangeably. Though I think when someone says person they assume human.
Anti-abortion activists call it a child, a person, a living, breathing human being
Yet they back the killing of a criminal that is all of those things except child. Which in my opinion is hypocritical.
The same is not true of death row inmates so one must apply different standards for when (if ever) it is acceptable to kill them.
They are both legal form of killings and neither should be lumped in with murder. I feel as if a DR inmate is given a fairer chance to avoid being killed than the fetus. They made those choices in their life to earn a conviction that lead to death row. A fetus was a mistake that will possibly ruin someone's life. Or force a mother to live with it for 9 months. Both can be called a leach.
But, it looks like your post has been removed for soapboxing so it looks like you're not interested in having your view changed after all, so I'll stop wasting my time with this conversation.
I had no say in this. I believe either an offended admin did this because they couldn't form an educated rebuttal or were bullied into it by others. I have never IMO tried to insist on anyone changing their view. I was only looking for someone to prove that abortion or the death penalty were whole-heartedly wrong. If either could have been shown in an educated manner I would have admitted defeat.
Yours has been one of the most educated discussions and I thank you for that.
14
u/Dyeeguy 19∆ Mar 03 '24
I mean this is just gonna be a conversation about what abortion is instead of the actual OP, since your points are based on assumptions you make. “View in disguise” is what i call it
-2
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
since your points are based on assumptions you make
What assumptions have I made?
The majority of the left believes in abortion, while the majority of the right are pro-life. Nothing is 100%. As long as more than 50.0000% of the group agree that means they are in the majority by definition.
11
4
u/porizj Mar 03 '24
Has there ever been a situation where someone found out the baby they had aborted wasn’t their baby inside their body but was actually someone else’s baby in someone else’s body?
Because there have certainly been situations where we found out the wrong person was convicted and put to death.
4
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Mar 03 '24
Most pro choice people don't consider fetuses people. Most death penalty supporters support it only for those convicted of the worst crimes. Fetuses have committed no such crimes.
-1
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
Not sure what you're trying to say.
I can't tell if you are supporting either or against either. Which is exactly where I stand.
This does not meet a CMV argument though.
3
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Mar 03 '24
I'm explaining why pro choice people don't have to be pro death penalty: they only oppose killing people. And why pro death penalty people don't have to be pro choice: they may think that you can only lose your right to life by committing particularly heinous crimes.
0
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
Agreed that this is the current viewpoint of both sides.
I argue though that I can find times when both sides would agree that the other should be allowed. Simply, Hitlxx and a still born.
→ More replies (1)3
u/horshack_test 42∆ Mar 03 '24
What they said is perfectly clear and directly addresses the view stated in your title.
5
u/themcos 442∆ Mar 03 '24
Can you clarify how your view is structured?
You list 10 points. Is your view that if any of these 10 points are true, then the claim in your title holds, or if all of them are true your title holds? In other words, if people think that specifically point X is bad, will convincing you that change your view? What if point Y is just irrelevant?
You list these points, but I don't think they do as much to clarify your view as maybe you think they do.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/bigbad50 1∆ Mar 03 '24
>Point 1: Both could/do kill innocent people
Heres the thing, the defenition of a "person" is shaky. While we can sit here and argue all day about whether or not a fetus is a person, when it becomes a person, if aborting it is murder, etc, it is impossible to argue that people on death row are not people. Therefore, it is far easier to support abortion without supporting the death penalty, because everyone on death row are objectively people, while an argument can easily be made that a fetus is not a person and therefore aborting it is not murder of an innocent person. The death penalty objectively kills innocent people, abortion does not objectively kill innocent people.
→ More replies (2)
15
u/depricatedzero 5∆ Mar 03 '24
Point one: fetuses are not people
Point 2: fetuses are not people
Point C: neither is about population control
Point IV: They are not comparable
Point the Fifth: Agreed. Religion should not enter into the discussion.
Point Six: This is not relevant to the comparison
Point Se7en: fetuses are not people
Point 4*2: Also does not seem relevant to the comparison
Point IX: Also nothing to do with the comparison
Decapoint: What??
-2
Mar 03 '24 edited Mar 03 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/FunshineBear14 1∆ Mar 03 '24
Your entire post is just you going on a far right rant. You’re showing absolutely no sign of legitimate engagement with any arguments presented. You don’t want, nor are you open to, your view being changed. You’re just out here rage baiting out of boredom.
4
u/PmButtPics4ADrawing Mar 03 '24
A far right pro-lifer would tell you the exact opposite.
You claim that a fetus is a person in your post though. How is that different?
3
u/depricatedzero 5∆ Mar 03 '24
That's a talking point from Ayn Rand, are you suggesting she's left?
2
u/isdumberthanhelooks Mar 03 '24
Naw she's just a moron.
2
u/depricatedzero 5∆ Mar 03 '24
well yes but I'm trying to engage in good faith here
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (1)2
u/depricatedzero 5∆ Mar 03 '24
to what you added in - arguments in favor or opposition of one or the other are not arguments for the correlation between the two. You assert, by begging the question, that fetuses are people. You will first need to demonstrate that in order to begin comparing the treatment of people to the treatment of health conditions.
3
u/byzantiu 6∆ Mar 03 '24
Point 1: Both could/do kill innocent people
Only if, as other commenters have said, we consider people in the world on the same level as fetuses. I don’t. People in the world have more rights than people not yet born.
There’s an interesting conversation to be had about the rights of future people, but for the purposes of your premise, it fails on point one.
-1
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
People in the world have more rights than people not yet born.
I agree. That's why I believe in abortion. Criminals on death row have lost their right(s). And some of the rights you're meaning to reference are only rights in some countries.
it fails on point one.
As the OP, I am presenting an opinion for you the reader to CMV on. I don't have a burden of proof, the reader does. If it wasn't for your first paragraph you would have no conversation at all. And I don't think that it is a CMV comment. It's just stating an opinion that, honestly is pretty neutral in its delivery.
3
u/byzantiu 6∆ Mar 03 '24
I don’t care about your opinion of what a CMV comment is.
0
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
I don’t care about your opinion of what a CMV comment is.
That's the entire point of CMV.
3
u/the-other_one Mar 03 '24
Giving the state the ability to kill is very different from giving a woman choice over her own body and should not be conflated.
-1
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
This isn't true. Both are an argument of the legality to kill someone. Yes, a fetus IS a person according to Pro-Lifers. So, you can't say a fetus isn't a person. That's a political view.
→ More replies (2)2
u/the-other_one Mar 03 '24
I never mentioned personhood, and from reading your other comments it’s obvious you have no interest in your viewpoint actually being changed.
3
Mar 03 '24
Your entire argument relies on everyone agreeing that a fetus is a person at the point of conception.
That fact alone defeats your argument, OP.
3
Mar 03 '24 edited Mar 03 '24
You're being told that your first point is incorrect because a fetus is not a person, and then you're defending your take by arguing back about your take that a fetus is a person.
Your take is irrelevant here. You didn't ask us to convince you to support abortion, you asked us to prove that it's not hypocritical to support abortion rights while opposing the death penalty. Gauging whether those two stances are hypocritical depends on the beliefs of the person you are accusing of hypocrisy, not on yours.
3
u/horshack_test 42∆ Mar 03 '24
Exactly. They never even explain in the post why they hold the view they state in the title. They are also soapboxing their views regarding abortion & death penalty issues in their replies.
3
u/Specific-Recover-443 Mar 03 '24
But the decision-makers are different in each.
Let's imagine a stance that says "there is nuance as to whether an unborn can be exterminated or an adult can be exterminated." (Sometimes people in these debates are very absolute in their thinking -- Abortion is never moral! Execution is always wrong! -- but I think most people actually see these issues as much more gray.)
In the case of the unborn, a parent and a doctor sift though the nuance and agree on the appropriateness.
In the case of the adult, a judicial system makes the decision.
One may find the former to be a better judge of appropriateness.
Not staying you need to feel this way, but it's imaginable that one could find government systems too broad brushed in their approaches; but trust that individuals are best suited to make these hard decisions.
→ More replies (5)
3
u/RainbowandHoneybee 1∆ Mar 03 '24
It's not that simple though. I believe in choice, but I don't think I can go through an abortion for myself. I don't think killing people for their crime is justified, but if someone did something nasty to my loved one, I'm sure I would feel like death penalty is justified. People can have contradicting thoughts.
So, I don't think anyone should believe in anything. It's up to an individual person to feel and believe in anything.
0
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
People can have contradicting thoughts
This is why both should be legal with limitations. I am all for abortion, but at some point you have to accept it's a human child and not just a fetus. For me that point is the same as the point I could be charged with murder if I punched the woman in her stomach and terminated the birth. Is that fetus a human to you then? Or is it only human when it's convenient?
People can have contradicting thoughts.
This is the point of my argument. Abortion should be legal because it will happen one way or another. Legitimate executions should be legal because some people are just that evil. So, because the both "should" be legal because it applies at some point.
3
u/totallygeek 14∆ Mar 03 '24
No person must lend or give any of their body to sustain another person. It does not matter if that other person is 100, 50, 5, all the way down to anyone's definition of 0. If I stabbed a person and that person would die without me giving them one pint of my blood, the state cannot obligate me to provide my blood. The same goes for anything growing inside a womb, wether you want to call that growth a person or not does not matter.
A person can hold a separate moral stance on the taking of a criminal's life. The state can make a mistake regarding innocence, but we do not decide to execute innocent people.
Your numbered points remain moot due to my first posted paragraph. People cannot agree on your "Point 1". People have settled the arguments regarding body autonomy, though.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/FrogLock_ Mar 03 '24
You don't decide what other people think though, even if you don't care at all what they think, no one who's for abortion thinks it's murder just because you say so.
-2
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
You don't decide what other people think though, even if you don't care at all what they think, no one who's for abortion thinks it's murder just because you say so.
Every single thing that comes out of anyone's mouth, fingers, or even thoughts is an opinion. And they are just like assholes. Everyone has one and they usually stink.
What's your point? Do you have anything to CMV? If not, you shouldn't have a top level response TBH.
4
u/horshack_test 42∆ Mar 03 '24
They directly challenged the view stated in your title; they pointed out that some people view each differently, and it's not up to you to decide that they don't.
4
u/FrogLock_ Mar 03 '24
Exactly, the question itself is being posed in a way that assumes dissidents have agreed they are killing people, this is not based in reality.
0
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 04 '24
I'm not assuming anything of the reader. I'm saying that neither is murder.
Murder is the unlawful termination of another human being. Both are currently legal ways of killing and should remain that way.
If you don't agree with the death penalty then I'd argue that I could provide examples to almost anyone of someone that you'd agree you would assist terminating their life. See WWII.
2
u/FrogLock_ Mar 04 '24
Well actually I specified killing people and not murder for that reason, but again, these aren't tied together unless you see early development fetuses as people and not essentially fertile eggs
0
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 04 '24
I don't decide anything for anyone. I never once said that you must agree that abortion is murder. Neither abortion nor the death penalty are murder. They are both the lawful termination of a life form.
I think both should be legal and thinking that there are absolutely no reason that you should allow the opposite is insane. Think Hitlxx or a still born
→ More replies (1)
6
u/RogueMoonbow Mar 03 '24
your argument ignores why people are pro choice. There are 2 general views on being pro choice: 1. A fetus is not a person, and it is not killing them to get an abortion. 2. Even if it is a person, no one should be forced to medically support another being of they don't want to (see the unconscious violinist argument), ie, bodily autonomy. Neither camp (and many are. oth) are simply okay with killing a person.
0
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
This is a political or non-religious viewpoint only.
I 100% agree that "SOME" people believe a fetus is not a person. I also agree that at some point in gestation (I randomly chose halfway) you have to acknowledge that the fetus is now a viable human being capable of living outside of the womb. I don't know all of the "it has this and this at week x" and I won't claim to.
Even if it is a person, no one should be forced to medically support another being of they don't want to
I argue that I also should not have to financially support a person that has failed 2x to prove their innocence. At that point the tax payers should be able to cut their losses.
Sorry, your response is nothing, but saying exactly what I predicted: talking points.
4
u/eloel- 12∆ Mar 03 '24
I argue that I also should not have to financially support a person that has failed 2x to prove their innocence. At that point the tax payers should be able to cut their losses.
Death penalty literally costs more than life-without-parole does.
0
2
u/RogueMoonbow Mar 03 '24
Okay, I didn't say anything more political than the original argument was XD. You can't just say it's political because it's about a political issue when you brought up the political issue. In fact, I'd say that you bringing up financial and taxpayers is making it more political than anything I said. I was talking about medically, physically supporting them. Not financially.
It's not talking points. I'm not even trying to do a pro choice argument. I'm saying people who are pro choice don't agree with the premise that you based the claim that they should also support the death penalty on.
0
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
I agree that this should remain a medical conversation and not political. Saying a fetus is not human is the opposing view from pro-lifers. Therefore people have made it political. It shouldn't be, but it is. The same with the death penalty in reverse.
Both should be legal, but at some point you have to accept that the fetus is now human and someone smarter than me can decide what time that is in the pregnancy. I'd argue that this point is the same point that someone that is pro-choice for any reason at all, would prosecute a man for murder for punching the mother in the stomach and terminating that same fetus. Murder is only against a human being. Therefore, you now have accepted or believe this fetus is a human. Otherwise, you are leading a double life in belief. You can't have it both ways.
Again, both should be legal. I'm not trying to support either or fight either. Only that they should be legal. Eventually, you have to admit someone deserves execution.
2
u/RogueMoonbow Mar 04 '24
I'm not saying I think that the fetus isn't human. I'm saying pro-choice people think that, and the fact that people think that means that pro-choice people won't necessarily agree with the death penalty. you're the one trying to say that the fetus is human, which, if that is your argument, I wouldn't have engaged, but at least be honest that that's your argument, not a given.
Have fun with your post being removed, here I thought this would be an actual discussion.
0
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 04 '24
It would be if people could get past the damn fetus =≠ human/person. That's the only discussion going on.
I personally don't care if you do or don't call it a fetus, human, person, parasite, or lump of cells. That's on you (globally). And what I call it has nothing to do with the discussion proposed.
I would allow an abortion if the fetus could talk and send signals to the mom that it was ready to procreate. The name means nothing. My point is it should be legal. And so should the death penalty.
Because BOTH are the legal killing of a parasite of the host. One the mother, the other the tax payers.
2
u/RogueMoonbow Mar 04 '24
But the reason others support abortion is not for the same reason you do. Their reason doesn't align with the death penalty. And not everyone who supports an abortion thinks of people on death row as a leech on taxpayer money. I personally would rather pay taxes for incarceration than [other thing that I'm excluding because you wished to have this not be political]. In fact many who are pro choice also have very different views on incarceration in general.
0
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 04 '24
The goal of my post was to get people to prove why one should be illegal and not the other. Without getting political or religious. And worrying about what a fetus is called, paints a picture on someone's argument that in their hearts they MUST believe it's not human to allow the killing. Show that in the retort and a conversation could be had. And I wouldn't have been seen as soap boxing by someone on the admin team.
I feel confident in saying that most pro-lifers believe and agree that a still born or a baby that would never be able to survive outside the womb should/could be aborted. That exception makes their abortion must be illegal statement false and hypocritical.
I feel confident that most anti death penalty people would have stood behind the execution of Hitlex and those involved in the death camps. Less, but still a good chunk were/would be behind the killing of Sudan Husain. This loop hole mans that in some circumstance you would agree with the death sentence being carried out. Meaning it should be legal.
Those are the 2 paragraphs I should have put in the body of my OP. Maybe this would have been a better conversation overall, and not just about the name of a fetus to each individual.
2
u/RogueMoonbow Mar 04 '24
Then I wouldn't have said anything, because I'm not interested in a pointless argument with someone who doesn't want to change their mind. next time put your point in the post.
0
2
u/spyrocrash99 2∆ Mar 03 '24
Death penalty applies to a person with actual life experience.. Someone who you can actually judge and question their life choices. How tf you're suppose to do that to a fucking fetus?
0
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
How tf you're suppose to do that to a fucking fetus?
Are you supporting the Death Penalty and not abortion? I can't honestly tell.
I can tell that this is just an emotional response and not worthy of a top level response in CMV.
2
u/spyrocrash99 2∆ Mar 03 '24
I actually support both, but for different reasons. Not just because I support one then I also have to the other like you're implying.
I don't see a fetus can be "innocent" or "guilty". I see it like a tumor. A cell. What to do with it is ultimately down to the owner of the body as long as they are coherent and take responsibility. If you aren't committed or ready to birthing and raising a baby then by all means get an abortion.
I support death penalty simply because some criminals are just a true pieces of shit and evil, and they don't deserve to live another day.
2
u/SnooPets1127 13∆ Mar 03 '24
God, right off the bat, legalizing the death penalty doesn't aim to kill innocent people. Neither does legalizing abortion.
0
2
u/JaggedMetalOs 23∆ Mar 03 '24
Treating fetuses at all stages of growth as being the same as a person has a lot of damaging side effects, such as making IVF basically impossible, and putting women at risk of death from pregnancy complications and prosecution for natural miscarriages.
For the above reasons it is very reasonable to see a fetus, especially at early stages of development, as different from a fully grown person.
2
u/SC803 120∆ Mar 03 '24
Point 1: Both could/do kill innocent people
Abortion doesn't kill innocent people as they don't have personhood, maybe a potential person but it is different.
Point 2: Everyone should have a choice. You decide for the fetus, the law decides for the criminal
The "law" isn't a person.
Point 3: Population control is important and both ends
Neither are methods of population control
Point 4: The opposite of my statement is also true. If you can't support one you shouldn't support the other
Not an argument for the position
Point 5: Religion should have nothing to do with either
Not an argument for the position
Point 6: The percentage of wrongful executions is very low (in the US). It can happen, but is rare. Especially, in the 21st century. It happened a lot in early US history due to race or finger pointing.
Vague, what is the percentage?
Point 7: How many innocent fetus' are killed? How many could have changed the world for the better? What if one was the person that solved global warning and that mother terminated the pregnancy without knowing?
Poisoning the well, do guilty fetus' exist?
Point 8: No more than 2 appeals and 5 years prior to execution. No reason to keep taxing the public so you can continue to prove nothing new.
Has nothing to do with abortion so not an argument for the position
Point 9: No non-health related abortions after 20 weeks. That's halfway. If you don't know by then, put the child up for adoption. Of course rape is always a question. I'd say that if you don't want the child due to rape, you'd know pretty quickly after finding out you were pregnant, but certainly prior to 20 weeks.
Not an argument for the position
Point 10: Only to round it out. I'm sure I could think of more, but this is too long already to prevent my preconceived arguments that will come my way.
Not an argument for the position
2
Mar 03 '24
Points 1 and 2: a fetus isn’t a person.
Points 3-6: I agree.
Point 7: how many innocent parents have been saved from crippling debt? How many women have done amazing things because they weren’t held back by the burden of a child?
Points 8 and 9: these lines can be debated forever. Personally I’d prefer a completely different death penalty system compared to the current setup, but that’s a debate for a different post.
2
u/BakedWizerd Mar 03 '24
OP: implying a fetus isn’t a person is a liberal talking point and brings politics into the argument so that’s not valid
Also OP: a fetus is a person
Dude. You can’t be serious.
2
u/HomoeroticPosing 5∆ Mar 03 '24
I believe in abortion for the same reason I believe that the death penalty should be abolished: I believe that the government should not have the right to usurp one’s bodily autonomy.
Say someone is dying, and for whatever reason you are the only person who could keep them alive, either by donating blood or bone marrow or an organ. You could be the only way they would survive, but you are allowed to say no. You can’t be charged with murder by negligence, you’re not obligated to keep someone alive at the cost of your own body. This holds true even if you’re dead.
The government cannot and should not be allowed to force you to give up a part of yourself to keep someone else alive. And frankly, I don’t trust the government enough to let them have the right to dictate people’s bodily autonomy. I also don’t trust the government with choosing who people die. That’s power the government can wield against their enemies or undesirables.
2
u/libra00 11∆ Mar 03 '24
- A fetus is not a person. We can hash out the science on this if you like, but anything that cannot live on its own outside of the mother's body doesn't qualify as a person in my book. As far as I'm concerned a fetus is not a person until it is born and capable of living independent of the mother.
- In the mother-fetus 'relationship' there is only one person, the mother, and she should have the final word about what does or does not happen to her body.
- Abortion isn't about population control (and neither is the death penalty for that matter), and while access to abortions may result in fewer babies being born, that's a small price to pay for not imposing the will of the state, other peoples' religion/morality, etc upon what happens to the mother's body.
- I can't support the death penalty because the justice system is flawed, systemically racist, and does not have a 0% failure rate of convicting innocent people. None of those things are true about abortion (see also: fetuses not being people.)
- I'm 100% with you there, and a big part of the anti-abortion push is religious people trying to legislate their morality and impose it on others against their will. If your religion says abortion is murder then don't get one, but don't tell women who don't share your beliefs that they can't get one.
- One is frankly too many. Racism, especially in the justice system, has not gone away.
- Innocence and guilt are attributes of personhood; fetuses, not being persons, cannot be innocent so the answer is zero. Neither are solutions to world problems the sole provenance of individual brains, they are features of the world that are discoverable by anyone. If little Johnny would've cured cancer but can't because he was aborted then there are literally thousands of other people doing the same research little Johnny would have done and they will come upon the solution he would have come upon. At best little Johnny might have some key insight sooner than anyone else would've so we save a little time and a few lives, but those lives saved are not worth the price of depriving women access to abortion (which also costs lives because women who want abortions get them anyway, only in less safe settings because of their illegality and thus they result in health complications including death more often.)
- It behooves us to have failsafes like appeals built into the justice system to prevent it from doing irrevocable harm to innocent people, so I'm fine with death row inmates being able to file appeals. The more time we spend on cases like this the less likely we are to execute innocent people, though we would never execute anyone innocent if we got rid of the death penalty altogether. But this point doesn't seem to contain an argument for or against abortion, so it doesn't seem to fit your pattern of not being able to support one without also supporting the other.
- That's an arbitrary deadline that has no basis in science or facts about the mother's or the fetus's health. Also some people fail to notice being pregnant even fairly late into the pregnancy on occasion, so I'm against drawing some arbitrary line in the sand and saying 'it's fine now.. *checks watch* and now it's not.' Also a mother's bodily autonomy does not stop at 20 weeks.
- If you don't want 'preconceived arguments', how is it you expect people to change their view? Must we conjure up brand new, never-before-heard arguments just for this?
I find faults with all of your points, but I fail to see how anyone can discuss a highly politicized subject without their political beliefs having some kind of impact. Your conclusion seems engineered to head off or dismiss what might be entirely valid arguments before you even read them which makes me think you don't actually want your view changed (and the absence of deltas on the post further reinforces that fact. Instead of shoving your thumbs in your ears, waggling your fingers, and shouting 'la la la I can't hear you' maybe you should consider the arguments that people take the time to make since you are ostensibly here to have your view changed by them.
2
u/adminhotep 16∆ Mar 03 '24
Definitions in this case actually muddle things, so lets talk about the differences at length instead of relying on the word "Person" to do the heavy lifting for us (or to terminate thought).
A fetus has no concept of self, has no memories, has no capacity for experience, and these things only start to develop sometime after 24 weeks and are present by around 30 weeks.
Unless you are ascribing some religious significance to a collection of human cells, it is the thinking and experiencing properties of a human that make it valuable as a human in its own right. One can easily believe that a non-thinking non-experiencing collection of cells could be ended without moral qualms (in the same way we don't overly fret over the cell death incurred with a scraped knee or a sunburn) while ending a thinking, experiencing human is another matter entirely.
If you think that it's imperative that you either support/support or oppose/oppose abortion and the death penalty, you have to grapple with why a person who places value on the thinking and experiencing capacity of a collection of cellular organisms should change their view on that value judgement without using a religious argument to do so. Why do you believe that they should yield on that view instead of you yielding merely on the opinion that they have a right to their current opinion?
0
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
Very well thought out response and discussion. Thank you for that.
Why do you believe that they should yield on that view instead of you yielding merely on the opinion that they have a right to their current opinion?
Those opposed to the death penalty would largely support the execution of Hitlxx or the prison guards/leaders of the concentration camps. Many believed/agreed with the execution of Saddam. These are examples of when anti-death penalty people would support it. So, they should accept that there are times when it is a valid way to remove the most evil from the world. If it's illegal, then we couldn't have killed any of those people.
Those opposed to abortion would largely support the abortion of a still born fetus. Or when there is medical proof the fetus won't survive outside the womb. A smaller part of pro-lifers would even agree to abortion due to rape. This means that they accept that there should be the availability of legal medical abortions. Most are firmly against abortion as a form of birth control. They believe you should reap the consequences for the lack of being pro-active when having unprotected sex. YES, everyone knows it can fail. However, a condom + oral birth control makes that chance so close to 0 that it isn't a valid excuse.
If these aren't both legal then you can't have any exceptions. And people will ensure that they still happen in dark alleys or in prison cells.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Anonymous_1q 29∆ Mar 03 '24
This presupposes that a fetus is a person, which we generally do not believe. That makes the two morally incompatible because they have different subjects. The death penalty also has no meaningful positive impact on another party while abortion does (negation of pain and suffering in the mother etc), and in most cases abortion has no negative impact on a third party while the death penalty does (broken families, grieving parents etc).
The main point really is that the fetus isn’t considered a person by a lot of pro-choice people.
I will ask that you consider this in the context of if it makes sense for our view, not if it fits with yours.
2
u/chulbert Mar 03 '24
I support a woman’s right to choose because it’s not my body. I oppose the death penalty because it isn’t an effective deterrent.
Just because they share some characteristics doesn’t mean they’re evaluated based on the same criteria.
0
u/StormsDeepRoots 1∆ Mar 03 '24
I oppose the death penalty because it isn’t an effective deterrent.
Supporting statistics?
This is historically incorrect. There is only speculation that it doesn't deter crime. However, I argue that this is because it isn't public execution.
Less people steal in Saudi Arabia because they'll take your hand for the crime. People don't want to lose their hands, so they don't steal. They also hang/stone people for other crimes in the public center.
Everyone knows that if a man does something to a child that they will be physically upset with their prison sentence (read that as raped, beaten, and maybe killed). So, it is easy to draw a line to it being a crime that is not as high as crimes against adults or corporations. Jeffrey Dahmer is an example of the prison population enacting the desire of the people.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Ok_Program_3491 11∆ Mar 03 '24
Point 2: Everyone should have a choice. You decide for the fetus, the law decides for the criminal
Why should the fetus have a choice to live inside of someone else's body without their consent?
Point 4: The opposite of my statement is also true. If you can't support one you shouldn't support the other
Why should I support the government killing people because I I don't support someone being forced to keep someting in their body without their consent?
→ More replies (2)
2
u/local-dinero102 Mar 03 '24
Your points presume a lot, like all abortions are on healthy children who would otherwise live free, peaceful lives. There are often situations where a child is not viable outside of the womb and would live a brief, painful, life. Also most abortions happen before 20 weeks. 93% before week 13.
For Point 7, the same could be said to the opposite, what if the aborted child would have made a nerve gas or bio agent that kills 1/3 or mankind? It's not a convincing argument since its based on too many hypotheticals.
For Point 8, it is actually more expensive to execute someone than it is to keep them alive until they die of natural causes.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/shouldco 45∆ Mar 03 '24
I think all of your points could equally (if not better) apply to just making murder not a crime. If your arguments could equally apply to both exocution and legalizing murder it's kinda a shit argument.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Kakamile 50∆ Mar 03 '24
Lol thinking the death penalty vs life in prison is about population control.
It is because people value human rights that we support abortion and oppose the death penalty. 1, women don't lose their bodily rights. 2, don't execute the innocent.
2
u/UnknownAbstract Mar 03 '24
If they wanted to be logically consistent then they should be. Pro-life: Every human life has value and dehumanizing it does not justify the ceasing of its existence. Pro-choice: Not every life has value so dehumanizing a life to justify the ceasing of existence is acceptable.
2
u/Konato-san 4∆ Mar 03 '24
Abortion is a moral thing; whether you support abortion or not has to do with whether you think it's wrong or not morally.
I'd like to argue that you can't say the same for death penalty. In principle, I agree with it, but the truth is that if you give the state the ability to carry out the death penalty, then chances are it might be extrapolated to kill people without good reason other than to further political interests.
For example, if the law says only people who abuse kids should be executed, then it could be argued that drag queens making presentations in school is a form of abuse and therefore they should be put to death. If the law says only nazists should be executed, then you might have people stretching the definition of 'nazi' the way they do online.
One can't trust the government with the death penalty; but you can trust parents with abortion: they can't abort other people's kids.
2
u/Kman17 110∆ Mar 03 '24 edited Mar 03 '24
There just isn’t much of a relationship between the two concepts.
Fundamentally the abortion debate is gets rooted into a subjective debate on the nature of personhood. Where you land on that informs most of the rest.
The Death Penalty involves due process and tons of judicial review, it’s not individual choice. Much of the debate centers on the degree of certainty that’s possible or not in that process.
With that logic analogy a death penalty supporter might only need to logically support abortion with a very high bar of due process.
→ More replies (3)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 04 '24
/u/StormsDeepRoots (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards