Who is being Inconsistent?

[WinePusher]

Conservatives tend to support the death penalty and oppose abortion.
Liberals tend to support abortion and oppose the death penalty.

Who is being inconsistent? Conservatives or Liberals?

[Divine Insight]

For me these are totally unrelated issues. The only thing they have in common is that idea that a "human life" may potentially be terminated. However, in the case of abortion even that is questionable, depending on how far along the pregnancy has gone. Not everyone agrees that a fertilized egg qualifies as a "human being".

So there's a bit of a "cheat" in your implication that these are even similar issues.

Secondly, in the case of abortion there is the rights of the pregnant woman to consider. In the case of a death penalty there is no such issue.

So once again you are comparing apples with oranges.

Finally, for many people these issues are not seen as narrow-minded as you have implied.

For example, let's take the "Death Penalty" or "Capital Punishment".

I'm totally against both of these terms. I don't believe in "penalties" and I don't believe in "punishments". None the less I still support the lethal injection of a hopelessly insane criminal. Part of my reason is to protect society from any further danger this insane criminal may pose them. Another part is to actually put this criminal out of their own insane misery.

I support the lethal injection for any criminal who requests it. Just as I support euthanasia for anyone who is suffering from a painful illness.

There are many details concerning this whole issue alone. But I'm totally against the mentality of "penalties or punishments". Those kinds of ignorant barbaric ideals stem from ancient religions that claim that some supposed supreme being uses these kinds of methods to deal with humanity.

So I'm totally against that kind of mentality in the first place.

What we should be thinking about is protecting society, and not about penalizing or punishing anyone.

Now, moving on the the abortion issue. That issue is extremely complex. A woman may wish to have an abortion because her fetus has been observed to be grossly deformed or diseased. In this case she is choosing not to give birth to a such a horrible situation. I would fully support her choice in this matter if this was indeed her choice.

There are many other reasons for abortions as well. I would support any woman having an abortion who has been raped and impregnated unwillingly. Why should she be forced to bring that fertilized egg to maturity?

So I support the woman's right to choose in these cases.

I frown upon abortion being used merely as a means of birth control for women who are too irresponsible to prevent pregnancy in the first place. IMHO just using abortion as a means of casual birth control is pretty ignorant.

So this issue too is not cut-and-dried. There are abortions I would approve of and abortions I would not approve of.

The problem I have is in forcing everyone woman to bring every pregnancy to term just in an effort to prevent irresponsible women for merely using abortions as a means of casual birth control.

The very idea that this could be a simple-minded issue is itself an extremely narrow-minded thinking.

You can't just put all cases into one basket like that. This is why I support a woman's right to choose. And I would even be willing to place some restrictions on that. But to treat abortion in-general as one thing is utterly insane.

The very idea that there are influential people out there who believe that they can do that is itself quite scary. Because clearly they aren't thinking very deeply at all.

But I think you are right in general. I think a lot of people do think very shallowly about these things and are either for or against them without even considering the possibility that there may be cases where it is far more sane to do what might otherwise seem potentially less than desirable.

Placing conservatives and liberals in two distinct baskets that supposedly have well-defined traits is already a false dichotomy right there.

[Nilloc James]

Does one of them have to be inconsistent?

I mean, those could both be the conclusions that follow logically from the priniples of liberalism and conservatism.

The real question is whose ideology has the better foundation or root principles.

[WinePusher]

Good post. I've responded to segments of what you've written and ignored other parts because I'm in general agreement.

For me these are totally unrelated issues. The only thing they have in common is that idea that a "human life" may potentially be terminated. However, in the case of abortion even that is questionable, depending on how far along the pregnancy has gone. Not everyone agrees that a fertilized egg qualifies as a "human being".

The same thing could be argued regarding the death penalty. One could say that a criminal has forgone his right to life, depending on the severity of the crime. The punishment should generally fit the crime, and I do not see how life imprisonment is an appropriate punishment for someone like the Colorado shooter or the Boston bomber. Life imprisonment is not an appropriate punishment or a successful deterrent.

Secondly, in the case of abortion there is the rights of the pregnant woman to consider. In the case of a death penalty there is no such issue.

You're right. But in the case of the death penalty we are considering a huge range of issues surrounding criminal justice in general. I've already mentioned two above.

For example, let's take the "Death Penalty" or "Capital Punishment".

I'm totally against both of these terms. I don't believe in "penalties" and I don't believe in "punishments". None the less I still support the lethal injection of a hopelessly insane criminal. Part of my reason is to protect society from any further danger this insane criminal may pose them. Another part is to actually put this criminal out of their own insane misery.

I support the lethal injection for any criminal who requests it. Just as I support euthanasia for anyone who is suffering from a painful illness.

There are many details concerning this whole issue alone. But I'm totally against the mentality of "penalties or punishments". Those kinds of ignorant barbaric ideals stem from ancient religions that claim that some supposed supreme being uses these kinds of methods to deal with humanity.

Then I suppose you're against punishment or penalizing your child if he/she misbehaves, or a student if he/she misbehaves. Our society is littered with institutionalized punishments, our schools 'punish' students who misbehave with a whole variety of things, from expulsion, suspensions or detentions. The purpose of punishments is to deter any further 'misbehavior' and to provide justice for the victims. And our criminal justice system should be set up along those guidelines.

Now, having said that I do tend to be against the death penalty partly due to my Catholic faith. However, I find the liberal view of criminal justice (the view that you just articulated) to be completely illogical.

[McCulloch]

Does one of them have to be inconsistent?

I mean, those could both be the conclusions that follow logically from the principles of liberalism and conservatism.

The real question is whose ideology has the better foundation or root principles.

I agree. Both views may well be consistent even though they present as an apparent paradox.

The conservative views stem from their belief that deliberately ending a human life is a very serious matter that should only be done if there are no other alternatives. They assert that human life begins at the moment of conception, so abortion on demand, should be considered a form of murder, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as self-defense. Their view on capital punishment flows from the same view. If someone is convicted of deliberately taking another human life, then that person has given up the right to the protection of human society, and is, in fact, a serious risk to human society to be dealt with appropriately.

The liberal view are, as they often are, more subtle and nuanced than the conservative views. In the case of abortion, liberals ask not when a biological and genetic human is begun but the more difficult question about when personhood could be said to have begun. They weigh the rights of the mother to make decisions about the functioning of her own body against the alleged rights of a collection of cells, which may not even have a functioning brain. In the case of the death penalty, they look at how it is being used: is there gender, race or economic bias in its application; does it actually work as a deterrent; what is the effect on those who have to carry it out; are the risks of a false guilty verdict; do lawyers make more money by defending and prosecuting a capital case than they do a non-capital case.

I personally stand at neither extreme on either issue. I believe that early abortions should be freely available to those who need them, but that late term abortions should be regulated to some degree, and only done with some legal and medial justification. I also believe that the absolute ban on the death penalty is a mistake. There is no reason to provide allow deliberate serial killers to continue to live.

[East of Eden]

I don't see how the unborn and criminals can be compared, the first group is innocent, the second is guilty of serious crimes.

[Divine Insight]

The same thing could be argued regarding the death penalty. One could say that a criminal has forgone his right to life, depending on the severity of the crime. The punishment should generally fit the crime, and I do not see how life imprisonment is an appropriate punishment for someone like the Colorado shooter or the Boston bomber. Life imprisonment is not an appropriate punishment or a successful deterrent.

I have totally different views on both of the specific cases that you have brought up. In the case of the Colorado shooter I personally feel that we are speaking of a case of extreme mental illness. This isn't a "Criminal" at all, it's just a very sick person. I do not believe that the Colorado Shooter deserves to be "punished" anymore than someone who inflicted by any other type of mental disorder or disease should be punished.

Of course, this doesn't mean that we just set him free on the streets. Clearly something needs to be done to protect society. The real question here is whether or not he can be cured of his mental illness? Is so then maybe there's hope to genuinely cure him. If not, then maybe putting him to sleep via lethal injection would be the most humane thing to do all the way around. Not as an act of punishment, but as an act of mercy. As well as guaranteeing that he will never harm anyone else again.

In the case of the Boston Bomber, it's my understanding that the youth they have in custody was really almost an innocent victim of peer pressure by his sick brother. Again, I would be thinking in terms of mercy here rather than punishment.

There are other cases where criminal exist who do appear to be fully aware of what they are doing and seem to enjoy it. Are they truly "evil"? Or are they too just extremely mentally ill? I have no clue. I would treat them as being mentally ill because clearly to think they way they think is not normal by any stretch of the imagination. So once again, even in the worst case scenario I would never "punish" anyone. But I may put them out of their misery whilst guaranteeing that they would never be a threat to anyone else.

That's a whole different vantage point.

The whole idea of "punishing" anyone is IMHO extremely ignorant an unintelligent.

Also, the idea that this would be a 'deterrent' is also absurd. Do you honestly believe that any of these people actually gave any thought at all to what might happen to them after they commit the acts they commit?

Mentally ill people don't think clearly. And this is why the idea of 'deterrents' will never work. You can't deter mental illness. That's a total misunderstanding of the underlying problem.

Then I suppose you're against punishment or penalizing your child if he/she misbehaves, or a student if he/she misbehaves.

Absolutely. To punish of penalize a child using violence or harsh punishments is to do nothing more than teach the child that violence is a valid means of solving a problem. That a very bad lesson to teach any child, IMHO. Violence and punishment never solve anything, even in cases where it appears they might have done so.

A far better approach, IMHO, is to mentor the child to get them to see why the things they may have done are not good for anyone including the child him or herself. Unfortunately most adults simply don't have the patience and wisdom to do this. So they resort to ignorant barbaric threats which solves nothing IMHO.

Our society is littered with institutionalized punishments, our schools 'punish' students who misbehave with a whole variety of things, from expulsion, suspensions or detentions. The purpose of punishments is to deter any further 'misbehavior' and to provide justice for the victims. And our criminal justice system should be set up along those guidelines.

Tell me about. Our society is extremely sick in this way. And ironically many of these ignorant barbaric practices stem directly from ancient barbaric myths that claim that our very creator is this stupid and ignorant.

After all, if a person is taught that God himself curses people to craw on their belly and eat dirt for the rest of their days, or curses a woman with greatly multiplied pain and sorrow in conception and childbirth it's no wonder they think these methods of dealing with problems are meaningful.

Our ignorance today stems almost entirely from these extremely ignorant God-myths.

If you are taught that God himself deals with disobedience by sending people into a state of eternal torment with no possibility of payroll then is it any wonder that you feel that spanking a child for not doing as you say would be a "God-like" act?

Now, having said that I do tend to be against the death penalty partly due to my Catholic faith. However, I find the liberal view of criminal justice (the view that you just articulated) to be completely illogical.

I don't consider myself to be a "liberal". In fact I reject that stereotypical label entirely.

If you want to place a label on me try "Humanist". I consider what is right for everyone involved. The people you see as "criminals" are humans too. Treating them like as if they are demonic demons is absurd. If they are mentally ill you should have compassion for their situation.

I also hold that anyone who does horrific things is "by their very actions" guaranteed to be mentally ill.

After all, if a serial killer goes around killing women, cutting them up into pieces and eating their body parts, then IMHO that person is clearly mentally ill. No question about it. Treating them like as if they are a sane person who has knowingly chosen to do 'evil things' is absurd.

When are religious people going to realize that mental illness is real?

You can't go around acting like as if every single person who does bad things is a sane intentional criminal who is knowingly choosing to do bad things. That's absurd.

In fact, in your question about how I would respond to a child who is misbehaving. Like I say, I would try my best to mentor the child and teach them to see why that behavior is not doing anyone any good including themselves.

And here the most IMPORTANT POINT, if they fail to comprehend why these things are not good, then this indicates a potential mental problem. Physically beating them or treating them mean isn't going to solve a mental problem, on the contrary it's only going to make it worse.

So if I can't get the child to understand in a sane fashion, then we'd be off to seek professional help from people who deal with mental illnesses. Maybe the child has a brain tumor? And here you are wanting to spank their bottom like as if that should fix everything.

IMHO, the very idea of punishing people is an extremely ignorant idea from the get go. And the fact that things like the Bible have a supposedly all-powerful creating behaving like this is disgusting.

We really need to get past these ignorant myths and start thinking intelligently.

Punishing people is stupid. Pure and simple.

[Donray]

The biggest hypocrisy of the Christians is that they want to use to the term "Prolife" when they are only anti-abortion and not prolife.

Why use the term "Prolife" when that is not what most Christians mean. They believe in killing in the case of a death penalty and most important these same people will kill during war or self defense. Prolife should mean that the person does not believe in killing another person for any reason.

This site offers a good example of the Christian hypocrisy for the term "Prolife" in that discussing abortion they don't like the term anti-abortion and want people to use prolife when that are not prolife, they are antiabortion only.

[100%atheist]

Conservatives tend to support the death penalty and oppose abortion.
Liberals tend to support abortion and oppose the death penalty.

Who is being inconsistent? Conservatives or Liberals?

But you realize that conservatives who support death penalty and oppose abortion can be not the same people. And liberals who support abortion and oppose death penalty are not the same people.

I'd also through into your mix (1) gun rights and (2) militarism. And now we see that your question of consistency becomes rather pointless.

[100%atheist]

I don't see how the unborn and criminals can be compared, the first group is innocent, the second is guilty of serious crimes.

Well... aren't newborn and criminals both groups of humans? But you are correct on unborns. They can't be compared to humans. You are clearly a pro-choice!