If you had to choose ...

[Hicksey]

Over and over I hear the hypocrisy conplaint when the left and right get to debating about abortion/death penalty. It gets tired. So I thought, lets take the hypocrisy out of the equation which begged the question:

If you HAD to choose life or death, which would you choose?

For the purposes of this thread:

1) A vote for death would be a vote for both abortion on demand and the death penalty.

2) A vote for life would be a vote for an abolition of both abortion on demand and the death penalty.

[Charles Anthony]

The problem with these choices is that the death penalty also depends on a justice system and abortion does not.

If I have no faith in the justice system, what should I choose?

If it is more important to have a fair justice system, what should I choose?

It gets tired.

You know what gets more tired: pigeon-holing arguments into the left vs. right ridiculotomy.

It becomes even more tiring when people over-simplify questions into either-or ultimatums instead of thoroughly examining the problems.

If I was forced and I HAD to select one of your unrealistic choices, I would flip a coin. Enforcing either of your choices on everybody against their will would be chaotic. Global observation: only a minority of jurisdictions still have the death penalty; a majority of jurisdictions have abortion.

If I was the odd-man-out in a society (imagine that!) and everybody else had the same opinion (i.e., neither of these choices had to be enforced upon them), I would choose NO abortion and NO death penalty.

[M.Dancer]

For the purposes of this thread:

1) A vote for death would be a vote for both abortion on demand and the death penalty.

2) A vote for life would be a vote for an abolition of both abortion on demand and the death penalty.

ORANGE!

[Riverwind]

If you HAD to choose life or death, which would you choose?

The over whelming number of people in society agree that a fetus is not really a human life and therefore abortion is not taking a life. Even people who oppose abortion but allow exceptions for rape and incest agree that a fetus is not the same as a human. IOW - your question makes no sense.

[August1991]

Hicksey, you have posed what is called a false dichotomy.

In any case, is life sacred? Then how can we send our sodliers to Afghanistan and order them to kill? How can we tolerate the "needless" deaths of children in the Sudan when we have the means to save them?

The fact of the matter is that we kill (or tolerate death) in some situations and not in others. It's a question of degree.

The over whelming number of people in society agree that a fetus is not really a human life and therefore abortion is not taking a life.

Are we now going to define "life" by democratic vote? An overwhelming majority can believe the sky is red but that doesn't make it so.

Riverwind, I think rather that believing a fetus is not "life" is an ad hoc solution to a moral problem. It's akin to a parent dismissing a gay son by saying "you're not my son anymore". It solves the problem by avoiding it.

[Riverwind]

Riverwind, I think rather that believing a fetus is not "life" is an ad hoc solution to a moral problem.

All moral problems require a frame of reference before you can analyze them. Using a definition of 'human life' is a perfectly valid frame of reference to use, however, it is not the only frame of reference that can be used.

[Hicksey]

When you do not want to answer a question, then you attack it I suppose.

Every time we get into a debate about abortion the someone from the left always questions how the right can be both for the death penalty and against abortion. "If life is sacred, why not all life? Why not the life of a murderer?", they ask proceeding to proclaim that such a stance reeks of hypocrisy. And conversely someone from the right will ask "Why if you can kill an innocent fetus, having committed no crime but inconvenience, with impugnity -- then why not the life of someone who has done something wrong to deserve it?", and then throw out the obligatory hypocrisy reference.

What I wondered was if we removed the hypocrisy from the equation and you had to choose either life or death, which would you choose?

This is hypothetical situation. I am not asking you to change your views, just pick one and tell why. It's a pretty simple question and yet still a hard one to answer. Our differing beliefs and the nuances we add to the two general positions make this a difficult choice.

I personally would pick life over death simply to protect the innocent lives -- even if that meant we had to pay to keep a murder alive.

The overwhelming number of people in society agree that a fetus is not really a human life and therefore abortion is not taking a life.

Why would people seek to protect a non-existant life? The whole pro-life movement is based upon the belief that the life is a life worth saving from the moment of conception.

Even people who oppose abortion but allow exceptions for rape and incest agree that a fetus is not the same as a human.

I disagree. All of the pro-life people I know allow for those exceptions, but not for that reason. We believe that people who did not consent to the action that caused the pregnancy, should not have to be held to account for actions under which they did not portake in voluntarily.

[Charles Anthony]

Advocating on the part of the Devil....

The fact of the matter is that we kill (or tolerate death) in some situations and not in others. It's a question of degree.

The over whelming number of people in society agree that a fetus is not really a human life and therefore abortion is not taking a life.

Are we now going to define "life" by democratic vote?

If tolerating death is a question of degree, democratic vote can be one such method of determining it. What other method would be practical? There is not much choice.

The question of determining the degree of acceptance of death does not matter upon the reasons for that level of degree.

If I am the lone anti-abortionist in a population of abortionists, my reasoning and their individual reasonings are irrelevent. I must accept a tolerance of death that includes abortion.

All of the pro-life people I know allow for those exceptions, but not for that reason. We believe that people who did not consent to the action that caused the pregnancy, should not have to be held to account for actions under which they did not portake in voluntarily.

You do not know ALL of the pro-life people.

I am anti-abortion even in the case of rape and incest and all other violations. I am also completely against the death penalty in all cases. Why? because, unlike all of the pro-life-exceptionists that you know, I truly do believe life is sacred. Period.

Does that make me left or right? (I know, I know, I can hear it already.... that just means I am looney....)

[M.Dancer]

A while back a pollster called and I agreed to answer to Qs......

I can't remember what the topic was, but it was political. We came to question and the supplied answers were a b and c. I didn't like any of them so I said none of the above. That wasn't good enough I was told. I had to pick the answer that was close enough to what I believed. So I explained what I belived and said none of the supplied answers work for me and it is a worthless poll that trys to pidgeon hole my answer.

So since then when complex questions demand simple answer I say

ORANGE!

[August1991]

All moral problems require a frame of reference before you can analyze them. Using a definition of 'human life' is a perfectly valid frame of reference to use, however, it is not the only frame of reference that can be used.

I'm not certain what you mean by "frame of reference" but if I understand properly, you are saying that "life is sacred" but since a fetus is by definition not life, then abortion is morally acceptable.

To my mind, that's an ad hoc solution. You have dispensed with the moral dilemma by defining it away.

To illustrate the arbitrary nature of your "solution", I asked how do we accept soldiers killing people in Afghanistan? Surely the people the soldiers kill are "alive", or meet the standard definition of "life". So justify the morality of soldiers killing people, you'll have to invent another ad hoc explanation. And away we go. Any killing (in fact anything) can be justified if you resort to an ad hoc argument.

Every time we get into a debate about abortion the someone from the left always questions how the right can be both for the death penalty and against abortion. "If life is sacred, why not all life? Why not the life of a murderer?", they ask proceeding to proclaim that such a stance reeks of hypocrisy. And conversely someone from the right will ask "Why if you can kill an innocent fetus, having committed no crime but inconvenience, with impugnity -- then why not the life of someone who has done something wrong to deserve it?", and then throw out the obligatory hypocrisy reference.

Your question is a false dichotomy because you're asking: Black or White! Choose! And clearly the answer is Grey! [Or as M. Dancer has said using more colourful language: Orange!]

Now the really interesting question concerns what shade of grey.

[Hicksey]

A while back a pollster called and I agreed to answer to Qs......

I can't remember what the topic was, but it was political. We came to question and the supplied answers were a b and c. I didn't like any of them so I said none of the above. That wasn't good enough I was told. I had to pick the answer that was close enough to what I believed. So I explained what I belived and said none of the supplied answers work for me and it is a worthless poll that trys to pidgeon hole my answer.

So since then when complex questions demand simple answer I say

ORANGE!

You are missing the whole point of the exercise. The point is to prioritize and decide which of your views you feel the most strongly about. I am not asking you to answer the question to label you as if answering it means something or will change what you believe.

It is a hypothetical. I realize that almost nobody will have beliefs that will mesh with the choices -- that's why I asked. It forces one to put to thought which is more important to them.

[M.Dancer]

You are missing the point of my answer.

You are asking in effect to pick either 6 or 9.....

and for the purposes of this thread...

1) A vote for 6 would be a vote for both 3 plus 4 and 4 plus 5.

2) A vote for 9 would be a vote 12 minus 2 and 15 minus 7

You see, I'm not pro abortion on demand.....I am though pro choice. And I'm not anti capital punishment..I'm just against CP by artificial means......

So people can be pro choice and pro capital punishment and be anti choice and pro CP....and anyone who tells you to chose 6 or 9, tell them

orange

[Hicksey]

You are missing the point of my answer.

You are asking in effect to pick either 6 or 9.....

and for the purposes of this thread...

1) A vote for 6 would be a vote for both 3 plus 4 and 4 plus 5.

2) A vote for 9 would be a vote 12 minus 2 and 15 minus 7

You see, I'm not pro abortion on demand.....I am though pro choice. And I'm not anti capital punishment..I'm just against CP by artificial means......

So people can be pro choice and pro capital punishment and be anti choice and pro CP....and anyone who tells you to chose 6 or 9, tell them

orange

You continue to ignore that this is a hypothetical.

You are not being asked to change what you believe. You are being asked to take what you believe, apply it to the question and make a choice based on that. Based on WHAT YOU BELIEVE, consider the choices, make one and tell us why. I know that people will likely not subscribe part and parcel to the choices above and that WAS BY DESIGN.

The exercise will tell more about how people think than anything. Your actual answer and your justification for it are really not that important. I am more interested in how people come to their decision.

[M.Dancer]

You continue to ignore that this is a hypothetical.

You are not being asked to change what you believe. You are being asked to take what you believe, apply it to the question and make a choice based on that. Based on WHAT YOU BELIEVE, consider the choices, make one and tell us why. I know that people will likely not subscribe part and parcel to the choices above and that WAS BY DESIGN..

If I were say........ pro abortion and anti CP

and if I picked either one or another....I would then be picking another one or that I didn't believe. So basically it is worthless becasue it would not reflect what we believe but some arbitray choice akin to a kids game that determice who you will marry......

[M.Dancer]

as you wish......

I'm picking death becasue I'm neither pro abortion or pro CP........no hold on....

I'm picking life becasue I'm neither pro abortion or anti CP.......no wait

I'm picking orange cause I'm not an absolutist who believes that either all abortion is good or bad or that all CPn is good or bad......

[Riverwind]

When you do not want to answer a question, then you attack it I suppose.

Your question is like the proverbial "have you stopped beating your wife yet? - answer yes or no" question. That question presumes that the person beat his wife at some point in time. Anyone being asked such a question has no choice but to refuse to answer or attack the question.

Your question is similar since it also rests on assumptions which are not valid for all people. For that reason you cannot expect people to give you a straight answer.

I disagree. All of the pro-life people I know allow for those exceptions, but not for that reason. We believe that people who did not consent to the action that caused the pregnancy, should not have to be held to account for actions under which they did not portake in voluntarily.

A child cannot be killed because it was a result of rape or incest. Anyone who takes the position that abortion in the case of rape or incest is ok is really saying that somewhere between conception and birth a fetus turns into something that cannot be destroyed simply because of how it was created. This arbitrary line between killable and non-killable status is exactly the same line that abortion supporters draw. This line exists because the overwhelming number of people agree that there is a difference between the human life represented by a fetus and the human life represented by a baby.

[newbie]

Hicksey, it's not all black and white.. I would probably be considered left if you held a gun to my head I guess, but I am totally against all premeditated death. I also believe though that I don't have the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body. Those are cases that should be dealt with on an individual basis and remain with the woman and her doctor. I am also against war, but I live in Canada and must abide by the dictates of the govering body. We agreed to go to Afghanistan but we will have lives lost. I am against the death penalty, but if the majority of people voted for it in a referundum, then I would have to accept that. Right and left can blur from time to time. I just don't want to be locked into a label.

[geoffrey]

I would vote for life, no right to impose death upon others not acting in defense. I'm very comfortable with the pro-life, anti-death penalty approach that I've always stood behind, it seems to be the least hypocritical IMO. I can see why those that support the death penalty do, but I'd prefer not to sink the criminal's level.

[Riverwind]

I would vote for life, no right to impose death upon others not acting in defense. I'm very comfortable with the pro-life, anti-death penalty approach that I've always stood behind, it seems to be the least hypocritical IMO. I can see why those that support the death penalty do, but I'd prefer not to sink the criminal's level.

I would have to choose the pro-death side. I oppose capital punishment only because I believe allowing human scum like Bernardo to live is the lesser evil compared to the possibility of executing an innocent person like Milgaard.

I also believe that people should allowed to choose the time and nature of the deaths with the assistance of doctors if necessary and that we should not be spending valuable tax dollars keeping people with no hope of recovery like Terry Schiavo alive when there are many other people with potentially productive lives ahead of them with medical needs that go unmet.

[geoffrey]

I also believe that people should allowed to choose the time and nature of the deaths with the assistance of doctors if necessary and that we should not be spending valuable tax dollars keeping people with no hope of recovery like Terry Schiavo alive when there are many other people with potentially productive lives ahead of them with medical needs that go unmet.

This is a much more complicated issue, I have never really been able to morally grasp this one yet. I think I lean towards your argument, but I've not been fully convinced on this one.

Either way, I think it's detached from the abortion or death penalty. This isn't about clashes of rights, at least not in my view. This is about how to ensure a system where someone can safely end their life... with no regrets if that makes any sense.

Obviously a person can't regret once they are dead... but I'm sure when I had food poisioning about a year ago I said I wanted to die, no doubt. No doctor would have euthanized me on that surely, but I also didn't actually want to die. I fear a cancer patient, or someone else suffering greatly, may want to die in the moment, but would have lived to regret that decision later.

Very difficult.

[Hicksey]

You continue to ignore that this is a hypothetical.

You are not being asked to change what you believe. You are being asked to take what you believe, apply it to the question and make a choice based on that. Based on WHAT YOU BELIEVE, consider the choices, make one and tell us why. I know that people will likely not subscribe part and parcel to the choices above and that WAS BY DESIGN..

If I were say........ pro abortion and anti CP

and if I picked either one or another....I would then be picking another one or that I didn't believe. So basically it is worthless becasue it would not reflect what we believe but some arbitray choice akin to a kids game that determice who you will marry......

The point is to make people think. Is one issue very important to you? Important enough for you to endure something to get it? Or is the other so distasteful that you would sacrifice something to see it not come to fruition?

I thought that instead of starting a debate that I knew would end where I started here, I decided to start here and set the debate on different terms to see where it went.

What I see is that instead of people attacking this conceptually they continually complain that they weren't given the choices they wanted. That was the whole point of the thread. If I give you what you want, the decision is an easy one. But if I give you one that requires that you prioritize which of your beliefs and which of the two issues are most important to you we learn a little about what makes each other tick. I thought that perhaps that insight might spark a debate.

[Hicksey]

When you do not want to answer a question, then you attack it I suppose.

Your question is like the proverbial "have you stopped beating your wife yet? - answer yes or no" question. That question presumes that the person beat his wife at some point in time. Anyone being asked such a question has no choice but to refuse to answer or attack the question.

Your question is similar since it also rests on assumptions which are not valid for all people. For that reason you cannot expect people to give you a straight answer.

Obviously you missed the whole point. The point was for people to look at the question conceptually. I asked for personal opinion for a reason. Your answer was essentially useless. There is no right or wrong answer to the question. The point was for each side to tell why they chose as they did so we could learn a little about what each other is made of.

I disagree. All of the pro-life people I know allow for those exceptions, but not for that reason. We believe that people who did not consent to the action that caused the pregnancy, should not have to be held to account for actions under which they did not portake in voluntarily.

A child cannot be killed because it was a result of rape or incest. Anyone who takes the position that abortion in the case of rape or incest is ok is really saying that somewhere between conception and birth a fetus turns into something that cannot be destroyed simply because of how it was created. This arbitrary line between killable and non-killable status is exactly the same line that abortion supporters draw. This line exists because the overwhelming number of people agree that there is a difference between the human life represented by a fetus and the human life represented by a baby.

As far as I am concerned, those exceptions are from a personal responsibility standpoint. For me abortion isn't just about life or death, it is a personal responsibility issue. How can we hold someone accountable for actions in which they did not participate freely? The humanitarian within demands that I afford those two exceptions to the victim. For everyone else that is stupid enough not to adequately protect themselves I have no such pity, and as such I wonder why a child must die so they can live irresponsibly.

[Hicksey]

Hicksey, it's not all black and white.. I would probably be considered left if you held a gun to my head I guess, but I am totally against all premeditated death. I also believe though that I don't have the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body. Those are cases that should be dealt with on an individual basis and remain with the woman and her doctor. I am also against war, but I live in Canada and must abide by the dictates of the govering body. We agreed to go to Afghanistan but we will have lives lost. I am against the death penalty, but if the majority of people voted for it in a referundum, then I would have to accept that. Right and left can blur from time to time. I just don't want to be locked into a label.

The choices I gave were pragmatic on purpose. I was counting on you having those views. It makes answering the question much more difficult. It forces you to not only look within, but think outside the box. You have to think in terms we do not ordinarily think of when talking about these issues. I was looking for a way of presenting the issues at hand without leaving a chance for people to run to Google to get their answer.

You are not being locked into a label. There is no right answer. The journey is all that matters.

[Charles Anthony]

You have to think in terms we do not ordinarily think of when talking about these issues.

Why?

If I ask YOU to choose between:

1) standing on one foot and balancing a pink elephant while having an abortion

2) doing backwards somersaults and serving fruit punch while at the gallows

What would YOU pick?

The journey is all that matters.

Why?

[Hicksey]

You have to think in terms we do not ordinarily think of when talking about these issues.

Why?

If I ask YOU to choose between:

1) standing on one foot and balancing a pink elephant while having an abortion

2) doing backwards somersaults and serving fruit punch while at the gallows

What would YOU pick?

The journey is all that matters.

Why?

The whole point of starting from the end of the debate and moving in a new direction was to learn a little about how each of the different viewpoints think. I have been through the debate enough times I know what the answer to each point I make will be. I've been through it enough times that I am starting to see repeat quotes of sources. I thought that forcing people to look at the issues through a different looking glass would be interesting.

Ultimately the debate usually ends as an adolescent bickering over the validity of each others' sources with accusations of hypocrisy being thrown about and a bunch of points being made by Google instead of people putting their minds to work on the issue.

So I devised what I thought would remove the bickering over sources because I would be asking people to think conceptually instead of practically. I also attempted to remove the bickering over sources by asking people to consider what they believe and consider to be true. I thought the added advantage to such a request would be a multitude of different opinions because everyone has different ideas of what nuances of each issue they think would make each acceptable. Lastly I thought that asking people to look within to answer would achieve two things: eliminate the ability of Google to answer for people and force people to think in terms of a hierarchy of their beliefs (or if you wish prioritize them).

But because people around here seem to have minds closed to debate in terms other than those they are used to, only one person has even attempted to answer the question. I don't know whether people are intimidated by the question or just refuse to discuss issues in a forum where there is really no right or wrong. Perhaps people come here only to win debates, and in doing so validate what they believe to be.

As far as I am concerned, any debate -- won or lost (though in debate and getting informed I believe there are no losers) -- is about what each side believes. Even sources are to be questioned.

IMO nobody wins or loses. If everything thrown about by either side in the midst of debate were more than just beliefs there would be no debate. If one side was 'right' there would be no reason to debate. This place is a journey to knowledge and a great opportunity to understand why others believe as they do.

The whole point of this thread was to take a different, off the wall, look at abortion and the death penalty. Since whenever we debate one of these issues the other seems to be invariably dragged in the back door I decided to take the two issues and force people to think differently about each.

I wanted people to ask themselves questions like:

Am I willing to tolerate X to get Y?

Is X so distasteful that I am willing to give up Y to prevent it?

Which of my views on the two issues means the most to me? Why?

What are the benefits/costs of each of the two choices presented to society?

I could have added little caveats and nuances to each of the two issues instead of asking black and white, but that would have made it easy. By dealing with ideas not watered down by compromise I force people to make hard decisions.