How can republicans be for the death penalty and against abortion?
July 282009
The are against abortion for the same moral reasons that someone would be against the death penalty.
Personaly I think the death penalty and abortion are both barbaric acts the death penalty means that the people who carry it out are no better (moraly) than the person being executed and as with abortion it is not the mothers choice to kill.
How is the person who kills that criminal any different to the person that they execute how is the court that determined that this would be the mans fate innocent anyone who decides to take someones life is to all intent and purpose a murderer just like the one the courts have killed.
I have seen a lot of people ask the question about abortion and capital punishment. In essence, the question is how can a person, especially a Christian or a Conservative, be against abortion yet for capital punishment. The reason is actually quite simple, though often overlooked. Especially by those who are pro choice and is generally asked in the context of defending abortion. Here is the reason why one can hold both a pro life and pro capital punishment position without being contradictory.
Capital punishment is the taking of a human life as a result of the State exercising its duty to uphold the law. After an extensive legal process lasting years, agents of the State, acting within legal sanction, take this life both as a punishment for a specific crime and as a deterrent to other criminals who may consider similar crimes. Many people, including many in the pro life movement, oppose capital punishment.
Abortion is the taking of a human life by a private citizen. I think I am safe in saying that all persons holding a pro life position believe this. I do because I hold the position that human life has an intrinsic value that begins at the moment the person has a unique genetic code separate from both father and mother. As such, the child deserves the same rights and protections afforded any other person including and especially the right to live. This is not an absolute right, as there are instances when the taking of one life in order to preserve another is appropriate, but that is a different discussion.
Abortion and capital punishment are not analogous in any way. An abortion is the taking of a human life by another private citizen. The definition of homicide despite the law that allows it. On the other hand, capital punishment is not the taking of a human life by an individual private citizen. While acting under the legal sanction of the State, a person is not a private citizen but instead an agent of that State. Remember, governments have many powers that the private citizen does not. A private citizen cannot pull someone over for speeding, levy a tax on his neighbor, or require a business to register and submit financial reports to him. The State can and does.
It is by this agency reasoning that a whole host of actions are allowed and are not individually damning. For example, a Christian who believes in the sanctity of life can still be a soldier. Even though that position may require them to take a human life at some point, as long as they act within their legal sanction, they are not held accountable for murder. The same is true for the police officer or armed revenue agent. However, if the agent acts outside of their legal sanction, they can and often are held accountable the same as a private citizen is. That is why if a soldier opens fire on an unarmed civilian, they are charged with murder or war crimes. That is why a police officer who beats a suspect in custody is charged with assault.
In conclusion, it is very evident that abortion is not the same as capital punishment. To equate the two is incorrect and violates Aristotle’s Law of Identity for logical argumentation. Thus, this is simply a strawman argument with no legal or logical basis and it is perfectly consistent to hold both the pro life and pro capital punishment positions.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Inexplicable. Immoral. Inexcusable. Indefensible.
EDIT: After reading some of these responses, I have to comment on the fact that not ONE person has mentioned the overwhelming data which has been surfacing for over a decade now, that with the advent of DNA evidence we are discovering many people in jail who are NOT guilty, and many people on Death Row who are NOT guilty.
How can you POSSIBLY justify the state’s murder of a person who may be completely innocent?
And once again, for the billionth time: YOU CANNOT MURDER THAT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN BORN. I swear to God I would donate a paycheck a month to pay for silly anti-abortion people to attend night classes to enroll in Biology 101.
References :
July 28th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Abortion and execution are both very bad.
Republicans sound a bit hypocritical if you ask me…
References :
July 28th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
ppl sentenced to death penalty are ppl who have done terrible things in life and dont deserve the priveldge to live in prison and watch TV all day off the expense of tax payers.
so i support the DP.
as for abortion, i support it. too many ppl are having children that they cannot afford. it may sound wrong but i think it should be mandatory for some ppl to have an abortion
and your comparing killing a baby with an adult (rapist/murderer)
References :
July 28th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
I agree with you on the personal level; however, it is also a plausible argument that the victim of an abortion is murdered without trial and conviction, where as one who is executed has been given both a trial and a verdict.
References :
July 28th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
baby is innocent, the only act being conception
death penalty is someone who conscientiously does an act that calls for his own life to be forfeit. Big difference.
References :
July 29th, 2009 at 12:11 am
I’m against both like you are, simply put, I don’t want a society that kills people. But here is the argument. With the death penalty, you are killing the guilty, with abortion you are killing the innocent.
References :
July 29th, 2009 at 12:25 am
I am a Republican and I am for abortion and against the death penalty. Abortion first and foremost should not be an issue in politics because it is a personal matter, just like I don’t believe the gov. should be able to tell you what kind of socks you cant wear. I’m against the death penalty because due to the process, length of time, appeals, it is actually more expensive than keeping someone alive for life in prison. If it was a simple bullet to the head after sentencing it would cost $0.05
Edit: How come I always get thumbs down for giving the cold hard facts to people? Maybe I should dress them up and make them more appealing like the liberal media does.
References :
July 29th, 2009 at 1:11 am
So if someone raped and then cut off your mothers head. You would want them to sit in jail while you paid to feed and clothe them. And pay for their cable tv as the worked out and got bigger and stronger and learned better ways to do it. And then after 10 years get out of jail and do it to your sister?
References :
Congradulations your a victum
July 29th, 2009 at 2:01 am
un-born child = innocent
convicted murderer= not innocent
I rest my case.
References :
July 29th, 2009 at 2:07 am
The death penalty is based on the ‘eye for an eye’ concept.
What could an unborn baby do to take an eye to make them have to give up theirs?
The criminal made their choice when they committed their crime. The mother made her choice when she had sex.
References :
July 29th, 2009 at 2:24 am
The baby has no choice. The criminal has chosen to break the most taboo laws leading to their sentence.
Freewill is the answer. The baby lacks it and the murderer has it.
References :
July 29th, 2009 at 2:47 am
Ok, I am not anti-abortion, but also I am not anti-death penalty. But here is their reasoning :
1. Criminals make their choices, they chose to kill, rape, and commit other heinous crimes against humanity and they bring upon themselves the death penalty.
2. An unborn child has no voice and no choice in abortion – they view the fetus as an innocent being (which it is) who is being murdered just because Mom and Dad seem to not know how a condom works (I know that is not always the case, I understand what most women who have abortions go through (my beef is with the ones who have it more than once and use it as birth control) – I want to make it very clear that I am pro-choice)
Lastly, I can’t see how you can compare an unborn child to a criminal – i would like to know how you think the logic behind the death penalty is in anyway related to abortion other than the fact that they both have the same result.
References :
July 29th, 2009 at 3:22 am
An innocent unborn child cannot control whats happening. A criminal made a choice they should pay the consequences for. That’s a BIG difference. Also, many times the child is aborted just because its not wanted or would be a burden on the mother. She should have thought about that before she screwed around. Why not kill the mother for being a slut and save the child who had no choice in the matter? The liberals love to twist this around and make it seem like both are murder, but they are completely different actions for completely different purposes and for completely different reasons. In short, criminals should be held responsible for their crimes, innocent babies should not be murdered for the sake of convenience.
References :
July 29th, 2009 at 3:27 am
The death penalty is punishment and puts to death a guilty criminal who will never be able to harm anyone again. Abortion kills a innocent baby,who has done no wrong.
References :
July 29th, 2009 at 3:32 am
For exactly the same reason Democrats oppose the death penalty and favor abortion. At their root, all political philosophies are inherently pro-life or anti-life. The rest is details.
In the case of execution, it’s the price tag. In the case of abortion it’s self-evident.
References :
July 29th, 2009 at 4:09 am
Because they think it makes sense to end the lives of guilty criminals and spare the lives of unborn fetus’s/
Go figure. To them that’s consistant.
And if you don’t understand the difference between a condmmed criminal and a fetus; that’s either your bad or your bias. It’s not that hard. You don’t have to agree.
References :
July 29th, 2009 at 4:34 am
I think the question should be: how can democrats be for abortion and against the death penalty?
References :
July 29th, 2009 at 5:23 am
Because Abortion is the murder of an innocent person. A person whom never even was old enough to walk or have its own say in anything. The death penalty is the murder of someone who, has done something so wrong that they have been sentenced to death, Normally these people have murdered someone them selves or raped someone, or done something else absolutely unspeakable and they dont deserve to be of harm to anyone else anymore and they deserve to die.
References :
July 29th, 2009 at 5:56 am
A Republican can ask this question..
How can liberals support abortions and be against the death penalty?
Killing babies and letting convicted criminals live?
By the way, I support abortions in the cases of incest and rape.
I also support the death penalty.
References :
Independent.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:33 am
well, in their minds, a baby is an innocent being, and a criminal who commits a crime horrible enough to be put to death is really not that innocent and their death is justified. however, i agree it’s hypocritical.
References :
July 29th, 2009 at 6:48 am
I really think there is no comparison other than taking a life I assume you are getting at. Let me see, a mother kills her daughter when she is 8 years old because she wants to go out and party and has nobody to watch the child. This mothers future life is in question since she took a innocent life. I also believe that getting an abortion,other than in regards of rape or incest, is also wrong.
References :
July 29th, 2009 at 7:36 am
In principle, in order to support either the death penalty or abortion, one must favor the taking away of a life. This is also true when confronting euthanasia. It is easier to justify the death penalty when one is considering someone who has done a heinous act against an innocent victim without provocation. All three are indeed, acts of murder.
References :
Philosophy
Ethics
July 29th, 2009 at 8:16 am
I think it is a mistake to make this about being a republican or a democrat, prolifer or pro-choicer. The Catholic Church stands out in its opposition to both abortion and the death penalty.
Many people haven’t yet taken a hard look at the death penalty system in action- and this applies to all sides. Most disturbing about the system is that it can make irreversible mistakes, but there are other problems with it.
130 people wrongfully convicted people were sentenced to death and were lucky to be exonerated and released, eventually. DNA, available in less than 10% of all homicides, can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.
The death penalty doesn’t prevent others from committing murder. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in those that don’t.
Life without parole, on the books in 48 states, also prevents reoffending. It means what it says, and spending 23 of 24 hours a day locked in a tiny cell is not a picnic. Life without parole costs less than the death penalty.
The death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison, mostly because of the upfront costs of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people. (upfront = pre trial and trial level)
The death penalty isn’t reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn’t apply to people with money. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, let alone executed?
Families of murder victims aren’t unanimous about the death penalty. However, even families who have supported the death penalty in principal have testified that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.
Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. Speed up the process and we will execute innocent people.
Sources:
Death Penalty Information Center, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org, for stats on executions, reports on costs, deterrence studies, links to FBI crime stats and links to testimony (at state legislatures) of victims’ family members.
FBI http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_04.html
The Innocence Project, http://www.innocenceproject.org
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/COcosttestimony.pdf page 3 and 4 on why the death penalty is so expensive
http://www.nyadp.org/main/70308Statements.html
http://www.mvfhr.org and
http://www.mvfr.org for statements of victims’ families
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/ for the Catholic Bishops Campaign to abolish the death penalty
References :
July 29th, 2009 at 8:31 am
I understand what you are saying. I consider myself a republican by mostly my value and in some areas, just my ideals. In the face of capital punishment, I would say even in the face of crime, I feel it is more my ideals that my values. What I mean is that I am not for those major forms of crime control such as heavy incarceration and capital punishment.
Republicans believe that the decision to commit crime is a conscious choice made through a cost benefit analysis. Some do believe that the analysis can be garbled up by environmental and biological factors, but all things considered the decision is still a conscious one. It is on this basis that they feel that the consequences should be harsh enough to outweigh any benefits of committing the crime. In this instance, capital punishment is used to deter crimes in others who might be tempted to commit them.
HOWEVER, some republicans believe that the best way to construe the analysis is to show/teach/provide other options that may propose a bigger benefit than the crime rather than offering a harsher punishment to make the benefit weaker, and to reduce opportunities for motivated criminal to commit crime by altering the environment. These are the methods I prefer. Some also believe in employing social control, IE faith based efforts, etc. Although I am really hard headed about the idea, I can’t stand the thought of a society exerting any kind of psychology over me to get me to follow a group of "norms" especially when that same method can be used to create gang members and prostitutes and hen sometimes those norms are stronger than the laws, I have seen this method in action with criminals and believe it to also be a worthy alternative to crime control.
As for abortion, the decision follows the same type of ideal. Conceiving of a child involves a sexual act. The sexual act is normally consential, meaning it was a conscious choice with both parties agreeing. Everyone knows that sex creates babies. Basically, a cost benefit analysis should be enough to deter one from having sex if they are unable to raise a child. If a person has a limited number of choices for just "fixing" the issue once the act of sex creates a child, then the person will be more responsible in their decision to have sex. This not only deters people from just engaging in sex half-heartedly, but it also helps deter rates of STD’s and other sex related issues as well.
References :
July 29th, 2009 at 9:13 am
They operate under circular logic.
References :
July 29th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Simple. Babies are innocent and murderers are not. Of course by the looks of the answers, some don’t see it as simply as I do. But I believe that it is.
References :
July 29th, 2009 at 10:34 am
That is a pretty common question here. You’ll see that the most common response from pro-life/pro-CP people is that an unborn child is innocent, while the death penalty is reserved only for those who "deserve it."
What I have YET to see is a reasonable response to the very real problem of wrongful convictions. In the last 35 years in the U.S., 130 people have been released from death row because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. These are ALL people who were found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases.
So, as long as the death penalty is in place, you are pretty much GUARANTEED to occasionally execute an innocent person.
Regardless of politics, how can ANYONE be okay with that?
References :
July 29th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Quite simple, really.
There is a difference between an unborn child and a convicted adult. The difference being innocence. One has had his chance at life and thrown it away, while the other hasn’t even had the chance to experience life.
And if you want to ask how the person who kills is different from the criminal who killed, I repeat the same thing. The difference is a manner of innocence.
EDIT: Here’s a scenario to help certain idiotic liberals to the Republican mindset, mind you this being extreme.
There are two rooms. In one lies a convicted murderer, who has killed four people without provocation, not to mention a series of other crimes beforehand. In the other, lies a newborn child. You have a gun, and are told to shoot one. Which do you spare?
(Yes, I know, this isn’t how it works in real life, but it’s to get you in the mindset.)
EDIT #2: Innocent people rarely get convicted as often as people like to make it sound. They often make it sound like every day an innocent person is executed wrongfully. >>
Hate to break it to you, but our law system is stronger than that. Admittedly, a lot do get convicted. But I dare you, go out and get a ratio of convicted people that actually did the crimes, and convicted innocents. Odds are, you’ll find a helluva lot more one the rightfully convicted side.
References :
Bonafied Republican, ho’s.
July 29th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Dubya’s legacy, Here’s a biology and law lesson for you, unborn babies can be murdered. I’ll explain in a smiple abc fashion so everyone can understand.
Murder: . Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder). From dictionary . com
Still with me? Good now that we understand that legally speaking murder is the killing of a human being, then the question is what is a human being?
Lucky for us Human Embryologists have already answered that question. Following is an exact quote from Essentials of Human Embryology. Though you’ll find the same in Any embrology book. quote: "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)."
So as you can see killing any being created by the union of human gametes or germ cells is in Fact killing a human being. And by definition is Murder.
Did you enjoy the biology and law lesson? good.
And as for the origanal question, The Bum said it best, walk into a room and there’s a baby and cold blooded serial killer and you have to kill one which one do you kill the innocent child or the murderer who will go on killing if you don’t take hime out?
Any rational minded adult could answer that question without giving it any thought.
The reason Republicans or in my case a Constitutionalist support the death sentence is for several reasons.
1. It’s a good deterent to people who might consider killing someone.
2. Justice. (If you don’t know what that is than you have no place in a civilized society)
3. Because in sparing their lives or granting them mercy you are commiting treason against the ones they killed. (Mercy is a back up plan from the wicked when they get caught)
4. It is the only way to insure beyond any doubt that they won’t kill again.
5. Murderers decided their Own fate when they took the life of an innocent.
I think that is simple enough for anyone to understand.
_____________
So how can I be Against abortion and For the death penalty?
Simple, I value INNOCENT human life.
_______
EDIT:
As for the innocents being convicted.
We need to revamp our legal system to deal with that because those people were convicted when they shouldn’t have been regardless of dna evidence. We need to get rid of cops that lie on the stand because they think they know something. Also I’m willing to bet that a good number of those ppl were convicted with only circumstantial evidence and not a single bit of hard evidence.
As I said the legal system needs an overhall.
References :
July 29th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Not all republicans are for the death penalty. I personally consider myself to be republican. And I’m against abortion. But I’m also against the Death Penalty. Just because I’m republican doesn’t mean I have to agree with ALL republican’s on ALL things. Sometimes I may vote with the democrats or whatever. I go by what is right, not what is political. Maybe this shouldn’t be about being a republican or not.
References :
July 29th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Hello and merry christmas,
I’m from Italy and I study english only at school, so forgive me for my language mistakes.. Here there’s not death penalty and i think that a state has to educate people that committs an offence.. So a life sentence is better because it can make a person think on his mistakes.. If you condemn a person to die this person will get crazy: it’s a psychological torture and also a public crime! Personally i’m also against abortion because if you have sex you have to know that you could get pregnant and an innocent child has not to pay for this! I am for LIFE!
References :
July 29th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I have seen a lot of people ask the question about abortion and capital punishment. In essence, the question is how can a person, especially a Christian or a Conservative, be against abortion yet for capital punishment. The reason is actually quite simple, though often overlooked. Especially by those who are pro choice and is generally asked in the context of defending abortion. Here is the reason why one can hold both a pro life and pro capital punishment position without being contradictory.
Capital punishment is the taking of a human life as a result of the State exercising its duty to uphold the law. After an extensive legal process lasting years, agents of the State, acting within legal sanction, take this life both as a punishment for a specific crime and as a deterrent to other criminals who may consider similar crimes. Many people, including many in the pro life movement, oppose capital punishment.
Abortion is the taking of a human life by a private citizen. I think I am safe in saying that all persons holding a pro life position believe this. I do because I hold the position that human life has an intrinsic value that begins at the moment the person has a unique genetic code separate from both father and mother. As such, the child deserves the same rights and protections afforded any other person including and especially the right to live. This is not an absolute right, as there are instances when the taking of one life in order to preserve another is appropriate, but that is a different discussion.
Abortion and capital punishment are not analogous in any way. An abortion is the taking of a human life by another private citizen. The definition of homicide despite the law that allows it. On the other hand, capital punishment is not the taking of a human life by an individual private citizen. While acting under the legal sanction of the State, a person is not a private citizen but instead an agent of that State. Remember, governments have many powers that the private citizen does not. A private citizen cannot pull someone over for speeding, levy a tax on his neighbor, or require a business to register and submit financial reports to him. The State can and does.
It is by this agency reasoning that a whole host of actions are allowed and are not individually damning. For example, a Christian who believes in the sanctity of life can still be a soldier. Even though that position may require them to take a human life at some point, as long as they act within their legal sanction, they are not held accountable for murder. The same is true for the police officer or armed revenue agent. However, if the agent acts outside of their legal sanction, they can and often are held accountable the same as a private citizen is. That is why if a soldier opens fire on an unarmed civilian, they are charged with murder or war crimes. That is why a police officer who beats a suspect in custody is charged with assault.
In conclusion, it is very evident that abortion is not the same as capital punishment. To equate the two is incorrect and violates Aristotle’s Law of Identity for logical argumentation. Thus, this is simply a strawman argument with no legal or logical basis and it is perfectly consistent to hold both the pro life and pro capital punishment positions.
References :