Real or false dilemma? Abortion and the death penalty

My sorrow over the pending execution of yet another American (how rightly has he been called the Terminator) has reminded me of something I've been thinking about for quite some time now. A while back, I heard some radio program discussing abortion. They had both Democratic and Republican spokespeople on the program, and I don't remember the reason the topic was abortion. But at some point, the discussion got very heated, and one of the Republicans ended up saying it was inconsistent for Democrats to be against the death penalty and for abortion. And the Democrats said the reverse was true of Republicans. All that heat and smoke got me to thinking.

I'm like Will Pitt in my opposition to the death penalty: No way, for no reason, should the state be executing people. Period. End of story. On the other hand, I'm a fierce proponent of a woman's right to choose FOR HERSELF whether to carry a child full-term or end the pregnancy (at least, for the first trimester -- I get more squeamish about abortion after the first trimester).

I do not buy the word-twisting argument that one is ensouled when the egg is fertilized. But neither do I buy the word-twisting argument about when the blastocyst becomes a potential human being: When the cells divide, it's a potential human. Let's leave all that diversionary bullshit out of this conversation. But here's where I'm struggling with whether this is, in fact, a real or a false dilemma.

If a woman chooses to end a pregnancy, she is choosing, at the most basic, factual level, to prevent the birth of a new human. (Please note that I'm trying very hard not to use the contaminated language of the two sides of the abortion debate.) The fundy zealots and their Republican taskmasters would have us believe that that act is the same thing as killing a (post-birth) human. And therefore, they crow, we cannot possibly be FOR abortion and AGAINST capital punishment because it's inconsistent. (As if humans were always consistent anyway...)

Is this a real dilemma? Are there ways to understand both these issues such that they are not contradictory? Please! Don't answer me with the when-is-it-a-human argument. I know all that. I'm really, really, really trying to discover whether I am holding inconsistent beliefs or whether there is another way to look at all this that I haven't yet discovered.

(P.S. Don't worry. It doesn't change my views one way or the other. I'm just experiencing some cognitive dissonance here, and I'm not sure if it's because of the Repuke word-weasle machine or because of my own inner discomfort.)

And I don't think it's possible to have a rational discussion comparing the two. I won't even try. :hi:

First, the abortion is about a womans right to choose what happens with her body as she is a sanctioned being. A pregnancy is only a human body under construction.....not a life with a soul.The order is just being canceled.

The Death Penalty is just that a penalty for a horrendous crime against the society one resides. Execution is a known consequence of such outrageous behavior.

When one's behavior is so outrageously cruel, as in a child murderer for example, they are deemed by their society and peers to of committed the ultimate taboo. Laws have been established by their society outlining what is acceptable and unacceptable. The Laws have established consequences for all violations, including First Degree Murder to the worst degree as in the child murders. Execution is what is ordered and sanctioned. Execution is the most severe consequence for the most horrendous of crimes. Such crimes were premeditated, self serving and no doubt satisfying to the assailant. Killing is murder, execution is a consequence of violating the law....that is quite different.

But I respectfully disagree with the state's notion that killing someone is the proper established consequence for committing horrendous crimes. Nevertheless, you see, I think, why some are able to shove this apparent contradiction down our throats as "inconsistent."

The first time I heard the dilemma posed it was by a prof from my law school. He wrote an essay about it in the newspaper of the NC CLU. He concluded that he had to be consistent and therefore opted to become anti-abortion to maintain consistency.

On the other hand, the one case is the choice of the state to terminate life, while the other is the parent's decision to end potential life. For me they are not the same. I can live with the real life v. potential life reconciliation of the dilemma.

Abortion is not murder, whether the fetus is a person or not.

But the shouting match I heard that day made me question my own assumptions and beliefs. I'm not afraid to question myself, but I absolutely don't want my logic or my beliefs to go down in flames just because of twisted words issued by some Republican PR firm. I also don't want to hoodwink myself, though. I want to make sure I've really thought through the issue.

So, playing devil's advocate to your reassurance, WHY is it not murder to terminate a pregnancy? How should I answer the fundy who shrieks that in my face?

BTW, I again assert that I won't change my position. If I cannot logically reconcile this apparent contradiction, then I'll just be inconsistent in my beliefs, and fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

and feeding off of her body. She has every right to remove it. Doesn't matter if it's a fetus or a 15-year-old or Mother Theresa. You can't force her to incubate a person.

Thanks so much for that image.

The other way to look at it is as a power issue. You can be pro-choice and anti-death penalty by framing the issue as one of not giving the state power over individuals' bodies and lives.

I always think of abortion as the woman having power over her own fertility, but I hadn't extended that notion to both questions. Good input!

Because -- presuming you do feel a need to conflate the two in one argument -- that's the rub. The state shouldn't kill humans, nor should it prevent women from aborting (not-human) fetuses. You might be better off searching for the point at which you think a fetus is "viable" outside the womb (a standard that's applied in a lot of cases; the Romans practiced exposure AFTER birth, comfortable in the belief that they were not killing human beings). For me, it's pretty straightforward: prior to birth, it's not a human being, but once you're born, you're golden.

I think such a standard would end a lot of the muzziness that makes this issue so difficult to settle once and for all.

Regrding DP, I'm opposed for reasons of utility rather than morality. It is TOO HARD to get it right with executions, and costs too much, so -- as a society -- we shouldn't even try. Lock 'em up forever if that's what they deserve, and be done with it.

Additionally, if the society condones official killings, that cheapens any other prohibitions against killing, and ups the background noise of killing for the society as a whole. So don't do it.

...in that stupid Sunday supplement, no less, not too many years before he died. (You can still find links to the essay on databases that collect full-text essays.) It was the most reasonable, rational search for some middle ground I'd ever read. They postulated that the capacity for humanness -- as measured by capaility for higher brain functions -- doesn't begin until after the first trimester. Therefore, they reasoned, a logical abortion policy would be supportive of first-trimester abortions but would, based on potential humanness, look more askance at second- and third-trimester abortions (excepting for medical emergencies).

I agree with you about how often the state gets it wrong with the death penalty and for all the other reasons you mentioned. BTW, I don't exactly feel the need to conflate the two in one argument; the conflation happened for me and I've wondered about it ever since.

I can't have a standard that a kid's not a kid until the instant he's born.

I saw my son on the ultrasound while the doctor was trying to make sure he knew which way he was positioned. Then I saw him go in and get him.

If someone's going to tell me that my son wasn't my son the second before the doctor made his incision but was 30 seconds later, I'd just have to laugh. Believe me. I was there and I saw it. He was the same kid a minute before the Caesarian and a minute after.

I think the viability standard is a defensible one, but the not a person until birth argument just isn't defensible in my opinion having been there during my son's birth and seen it myself.

I've seen plenty of ultrasounds and I know they are sons and daughters before birth. And I know if I think about this viability issue too hard, it'll become very slippery itself. After all, the first trimester "marker" is just as arbitrary, in some ways, as the "not until birth" marker.

Of course, I'm playing devil's advocate with myself because I flip all these arguments over in my own mind all the time.

and don't really disagree with you.

The subtext of my argument is that there is no "divine" moment when a fetus becomes a person, and that it's up to society (and implicitly, individual people) to decide when a lump of tissue stops being the sole concern of the woman sustaining it and becomes an individual. For me that when is birth, but I'm open to other definitions.

in the case of abortion, there is no way for a woman regain control of her body and become non-pregnant without killing the fetus. at least, up to be moment of viability, at which point i think the morality changes, precisely because there is, at that point, an alternative.

in the case of the death penalty, there is a very obvious and simple alternative in the form of life imprisonment. such a prisoner is not a particular bother to anyone one. any guard who can't stand him can quit or get reassigned, whatever. not a big deal to keep people in jail forever.

can a woman go to remove the fetus from her body when the fetus is on the cusp of viability.

Or, alternatively, does a woman have the right to engage in an "easier" or more comfortable way of terminating the pregnancy if that easier or more comfortable way means taking away the fetus' viability, if there is an alternate, less comfortable procedure that would save it.

Great point.

...who ARE NOT standing in line waiting for the newly baked babies, I've noticed, is that the expectant mother should adopt the unwanted baby out. Again, I'm not going there. We've heard it all so much we are collectively ready to vomit. :puke:

I'm just trying to determine if there is, in fact, an element of "killing" in terminating a pregnancy (and I'm talking about a routine first-trimester abortion when a woman chooses not to bear the child she's pregnant with -- not an emergency, life-saving procedure).

I also hadn't thought of these issues.

... and it is a valid one.

My views on abortion and the death penalty mirror yours -- so I, too, have had to face this inner argument head-on more than once.

I will share my thoughts with you; hopefully, they will give you a perspective that offers some comfort.

It could be argued that abortion is the ending of a life. However, it is the termination of a 'life' that has not come to fruition. An adult facing death is a person with experience, memories, emotions; they can sense what they are about to lose, whereas a fetus cannot sense any 'loss' of what might-have-been, could-have-been, should-have-been. An adult on death row knows that death is imminent; a fetus does not.

My mother is a devout Catholic, and we have had the 'abortion' discussion many times over the years. It was long her contention that God places each of us on earth for a reason. "What if the child you are aborting was meant to be a great scientist who would find a cure for cancer," she would say. My response was a simple one. I believe in God, an all-knowing, all-powerful God -- how could God's own plans for this earth be thwarted by one woman choosing to terminate a pregnancy? Surely that same soul would come into this world regardless, through another woman, another pregnancy that goes full term. Besides, if God is all-knowing, he knows the decision I'm going to make, doesn't He?

When it comes to pregnancy and birth, I follow one maxim: "Every child a wanted child." Women do not choose abortion in order to 'kill' a child; they choose it for a myriad of reasons, none of which hinge on a desire to take a human life. I think abortion is the better, more unselfish choice in many cases: "My husband just lost his job, and if we have another child, our other children will have to do without," or, "I've been told the child I'm carrying will be severely handicapped, and I don't have the financial resources or emotional stability to give that child the constant care it will require."

Every abortion that is chosen as the best option has a reason behind it -- and, in most cases, it is a valid, well thought out reason, based on compassion. The only valid argument for choosing the death penalty is a misplaced sense of revenge.

In the case of capital punishment, the State chooses to take a life that already exists on this earth -- a life that may have gone terribly off-track, but an existing life nonetheless. In the overwhelming number of these cases, there are questions: Is this person truly guilty of the crime they've been accused of? Is this person beyond all social redemption, or do they still have something truly remarkable and valuable to contribute to society? Once the gas is emitted, or the lethal injection is administered, those questions remain to haunt us all as individuals, and as a society.

IMHO, there is no 'disconnect' between agreeing with a woman's individual right to choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and the heartfelt belief that once a human being takes his or her place in our society, they are entitled to all of the compassion we are capable of.

Every child deserves forgiveness for wrongdoing. Death row inmates are also 'children' of someone, as well as children of God - should we not find a place of forgiveness in our hearts for them?

I posted a response to your reply just below. Sorry for my goofup, and thanks for your thoughts.

accurate. I wouldn't consider myself "for" abortion - what I am in favor of is a woman's right to choose for herself what is best for her, and in the case of medical need, her right to decide privately with her health care provider what procedure is best for her.

I also believe that born humans possess basic human rights that can't be conferred upon the unborn. Additionally, I have a hard time with the "rights" of the unborn trumping the rights of the born person who carries that unborn, even though that position may at times seem cold.

My pro-choice position has never been one that I have felt a need to reconcile with my anti-death penalty position.

These are beautifully reasoned thoughts. I thank you, also, for understanding that I'm struggling to understand my own apparently contradictory beliefs. Of course, I'm making the mistake that if I present well-reasoned arguments, the conservative/fundy will see the brilliant logic of my position. Not. Nevertheless, I don't want to inhabit the same grievously inconsistent intellectual space as those who say such stupid things as, "They hate us for our freedoms."

Sorry, LIW. I meant to reply to the posting above yours but clicked the wrong link. However, I also totally agree with you about the difference between being in favor of a woman controlling her own fertility and being "for abortion." As I said earlier, I get pretty squeamish about later-term abortions (excepting those for medical emergencies), and in general, I would be perfectly happy if we could prevent as many abortions as possible.

The inflammatory rhetoric of the anti-abortionists, such as that an unborn child could possess rights that surpass those of the mother, just makes me sick. That's why I'm trying so very hard to avoid going there while trying to think out loud about one of "their" assertions that might bear some thinking about.

Thanks for your thoughts.

to maintain consistency, I also personally oppose abortion, but support the right of a woman to choose. I have (and no doubt will in the future) made exceptions to both. The obvious exceptions to abortion are in terms of rape, or when the woman's life is at risk. The obvious exceptions to the DP are serial killers (political killers like B* and Hitler are also included here) and perpetrators of other heinous, pre-meditated crimes against humanity. But I do not buy the 'logic' of taking a life to be a punishment for taking a life...there is no argument to this logic as it is illogical. And if the one act is immoral, then so is the other.

I believe that human life begins at conception, and I believe the immortal soul is present at birth, and is God given, not some material thing provided by the union of the ovum and the sperm, but immaterial consciousness. I believe in reincarnation, and worry that this soul experiences something of the abortion event. I'm Christian by rearing and by culture, but also because I believe in the veracity of the words of Christ. I likewise believe in the veracity of the words of Socrates, The Buddha, the Sufi's, some Hindus, and many, many others.

I believe that adult human choice though, is far better than any Governmental dictation of abortion. I believe in choice AND life. I suffer much more from the inconsistencies of the "Right to Lifers" who do nothing to support the children that they so revere until they are actually born, and can uphold the DP with their 'eye' for an eye' (NON) Justice, and support the NRA, and support War.

...we humans. (Or maybe it's just we Democratic humans...) I get so angry when I see the anti-abortionists lining up outside the clinics to harrass the women when they go in, but, as I mentioned before, when I DON'T see them lining up to adopt those babies the women are going to abort. At least we wonder about our own inconsistencies. They don't seem to give a rat's ass about their inconsistent behavior.

I simply have no power in the situation to decide to tell anyone what to do or not to. I think the matter is better left for the families and the courts to decide. The only possible exception is if some sick mother hurts some one elses kid or rape other than that I just dont want any part in the decision.

When a murder harms children, I naturally want that person to suffer every nanosecond of what the child suffered, even up to death. But like so many others have pointed out on other threads here, I FEEL as if that should happen because I'm emotionally involved in the story. But my emotions don't make it right to do the old eye-for-an-eye thing. Scores are never settled, accounts are never evened when murderers are put to death. Everyone loses.

I am cursed with seeing both sides of every issues to the point where i tare myself up on it. I hope i dont sound wishy washy. I just think that it's a matter for the families to decide in certain cases wheres theres undeniable proof and that the family member is made to be made aware that he will be made responsible for the person he commited to the electric chair. Hmmm I think you can say i believe in the prime directive i just want to stay out of peoples lives.

the position of limiting the government's power.

I'll take it that this position with respect to capital punishment is obvious. The state is not infallible, therefore it should not take a human life except as a direct action to save another life; not as an after the fact action.

The strongest argument I've seen in this vein from a pro-choice point of view is a 1971 paper by Judith Jarvis Thomson A Defense of Abortion. She argues that the state has no authority to compel anyone to to share his body with any other human being for 9 months. She uses the example of waking up in a hotel room and a violinist with a failing kidney has been surgically connected to share your kidney 'til his can be repaired. If you accept the argument that the state can't compel you to do this, then it follows that the state doesn't have the authority to force a woman to carry a fetus to term - I'm probably somewhat misstating her argument, it's been a while since I've actually read the article - but it's something along those lines.