It is, but they will persist because their motivation has nothing to do with rational thinking.
How come people who are against abortion are in favor of the death penalty? Kind of seems like a contradicition/
Submitted 4 weeks ago by Don_Dickle@lemmy.world to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
Comments
barsquid@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 4 weeks ago
Most people aren’t all that well informed and don’t do a lot of crtical thinking about their political positions on things. Many people are only guided by their emotions.
If your Church says that life begins at conception, then abortion is killing babies. So you’d be angry about abortions happening.
If you hear a horrible crime, you’re angry about that and might want the person that did that crime to be executed. If you never hear about or think about innocent people being execute, never consider the ethical problems with a government killing people, never consider the costs of it, and all the other arguments against the death penalty, then you can go through life thinking there’s no problem with it.
And even if you hear the rational arguments, they get overpowered by emotion the next time someone says “abortion is murder” or you hear about a horrible crime happening that might qualify for the death penalty.
Shardikprime@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
This. People are not that complicated
LucidNightmare@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
They only care until you’re born, then you can go and die in a ditch somewhere.
cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Because they’re goddamned thoughtless morons.
mhague@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
If you smoke weed you’re more likely to wear converse. It’s aesthetics. When someone says they’re anti abortion I usually see it as aesthetics. They want others to see them as being anti abortion. That’s what they get out of it.
It isn’t a literal belief. Democrats reduce abortions, much better than cons. Being anti abortion should mean voting for Democrats… IF you were still taking things literally. It’s not misinformation or lack of education, it’s misaligned priorities.
They’re just trying to be a tribe and signal allegiance. To have literal beliefs that you live by regardless of “your side” is a completely different game to what they’re playing.
Free_Opinions@feddit.uk 4 weeks ago
The thing I’ve yet to figure out about the abortion debate, and what likely gets me labeled as a right-wing bigot for even daring to ask, is where ‘pro-choice’ people draw the line. The ‘pro-life’ view is clear: life starts at conception. However, I don’t know where the left draws the line, and in my mind, refusing to do so seems to suggest it would be fine even a day before birth, which seems like an equally extreme position.
TheLadyAugust@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
For all the left people I know, including myself, The reason we don’t want a line drawn is because sometimes special circumstances arise. There may be medical complications in the third trimester that would result in the mother’s death and it’s not feasible to exhaustively list every scenario that could land her in this situation so it’s better to just not a put a limit on it so she doesn’t have some bullshit hoop to jump through later while she’s dying.
That said, I don’t think there’s anyone genuinely arguing that people should be allowed to get abortions super late into the pregnancy just for funsies. Third trimester is the logical cut off to me, and most of the people I know agree or want it slightly shorter. We just don’t want the law to specify that since it can cause legal complications. It’s better that it be considered a medical standard.
Free_Opinions@feddit.uk 4 weeks ago
I don’t think that drawing a line means it wouldn’t be allowed under any circumstances after that. Before the line, it would be at the mother’s discretion, and after passing the line, you’d need a statement from one or two doctors and a valid medical reason for it.
Barometer3689@feddit.nl 4 weeks ago
To answer your question. They consider the argument of “where do you draw the line” to be a red herring.
Consider the following: if a person is in need for a kidney transplant, or else he would die, would it be ethical to force someone to donate their kidney against their will? I think not.
Same applies to abortions. You are being forced to feed a parasitic being in your body, a being that destroys your body in the process. And not having an option to abort would be to take away your bodily autonomy.
As for the line, I think that the person making that choice is the one that draws that line. It is not for us to decide.
Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
Surely you can get rid of that ‘parasite’ in the first few months instead of waiting for the last minute? I don’t see how drawing the line at, say 12 weeks now somehow takes away a person’s bodily autonomy.
Speaking of a red herring, a comparison to a forced kidney donation is completely irrelevant here.
Free_Opinions@feddit.uk 4 weeks ago
Okay, let’s take this reasoning even further then. Why can’t this same logic be used to a 3 year old?
beefbot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 weeks ago
are you a sleeper account? 7mo old acct & in 1h you’ve responded 2x to emotionally charged political topics with sidelining , near-no-commitment comments that take up space & try to dilute the issue
Abortion is a human right. Death penalty is cruel & horrifying.
Free_Opinions@feddit.uk 4 weeks ago
Death penalty is justice. Abortion is cruel & horrifying.
See? That’s how convincing your reasoning is. Luckily the other people responding are atleast addressing the question.
purplemonkeymad@programming.dev 4 weeks ago
Not everyone agrees on an exact time, typically the viability of the fetus outside of the womb is the consideration.
This would mean a baby that would be just premature wouldn’t be aborted. As you move back the viability would end up varying for each pregnancy, which is why after a set point doctors are involved. They then make a medical judgement balancing the viability and safety to the carrier.
So there is no hard date. The insistence on getting one simplifies a complicated issue where nuance is important.
I’ve noticed that a lot of anti-abortion laws target doctors, specifically to make the fuzzy nature of the cuttoff difficult.
Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
Clear and simple makes things easy, but easy is not always better. Also, the “life begins at conception” position only seems clear on the surface, but if you look deep enough things get quite muddled.
For example, is a zygote a single person? What if it later divides and becomes twins or triplets: did the twin’s life begin at conception? Did one life become two? Is a zygote a ball of life that can become one or more people?
What about miscarriages? It’s thought as many as half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, but most happen so early that the carrier is not even aware they’re pregnant. If you come across a family with four kids, do you assume they likely had another 3-4 lost lives via miscarriage and hold a funeral for them?
Should people start getting child tax benefits as soon as they have a positive pregnancy test? Or is “life starts at conception” only relevant when we’re talking about abortion, but conveniently ignored everywhere else?
And what if there is a complication with pregnancy, where if an abortion is not performed both the carrier and developing human will likely die, but if an abortion is performed only the developing human will likely die? Is it now permissible? What if the carrier is a 14 year old who was raped, is suicidal, and has a high chance of stabbing themselves in the abdomen to try to self-abort if they’re not able to get an abortion: should they be restrained in a padded room until the baby is born, forced to serve as an incubator for a baby that the state will then take?
Even when your cutoff is strict, it is not always “clear” because this is a complex issue without a clear answer.
But to answer your question specifically:
Pro-choice people generally recognize that abortion is not desirable, but disagree exactly what the rules should be. Abortion does the least harm when the pregnancy is a single cell (zygote,) and in the embryo stage where most abortions occur the developing human is essentially a collection of multiple cell lines becoming differentiated into tissue but not yet developing functional organs (you’ll often hear this called “a clump of cells.”)
As the embryo develops into a fetus, the heart and brain develop and start functioning, which is where some pro-choice people start to draw a line. Others point toward viability: at about 22 weeks, a few fetuses have been known to survive with extraordinary health measures. By 36 weeks, fetuses can be live born without any extra health issues from being born early. So starting about 20 weeks, we start to recognize that pregnancies become more and more viable: that’s where a lot of people draw the line.
A very small percentage of abortions are done late in pregnancy, typically for health reasons. Not all pro-choice people are in favor of legalizing this, but many feel that in these situations, abortion is a tough decision that is best made by a patient in a careful discussion with their doctor, not by a politician they will never meet. So while these pro-choice people may not wish to see an abortion performed within a week or two of natural birth, they do not want to outlaw it so that the option is there for people who truly need it.
Free_Opinions@feddit.uk 4 weeks ago
I mean the pro-life stance is clear in the sense that they generally don’t accept abortion unless the mother’s life is in danger. So when someone is ‘pro-life,’ I know what that means. However, when someone says they’re ‘pro-choice,’ I don’t always know what they mean. I’ve assumed most people draw the line somewhere around three months, after which you’d need a medical reason and a doctor’s statement to proceed. But based on the replies I’ve gotten here, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Many seem to suggest that no such lines should be drawn at all and even go as far as calling the baby a parasite, which seems a bit crazy to me to put it lightly.
Grimm665@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
For at least pro-choice voters, many are more concerned with the line being drawn by doctors, and not by politicians. So it’s less about where the line is being drawn and who, with the proper education, is doing the drawing.
Free_Opinions@feddit.uk 4 weeks ago
Maybe I should’ve been more specific - I meant the point after which you need to consult a doctor to go ahead with an abortion. I think most people agree that a fetus just a few weeks old is barely a living thing, so aborting it is hardly different from, cumming in a sock. However, there is a point after which we’re no longer talking about a lump of cells but a sentient being, and to me at least, it seems reasonable that after that point, you’d need a medical reason to do it.
Where I’m from, that line is at 12 weeks. Until then, you’re free to do it for whatever reason you want. The unwillingness to draw any line like that means they’d be okay aborting an 8 month old too even for financial reasons and that just sounds fucking insane to me.
barsquid@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
If we have reached the day prior to birth the person carrying doesn’t want an abortion. It’s therefore fine to leave the decision to them and their medical team.
minibyte@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
- Momma’s threat “I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it” hits harder.
sanguinepar@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
To be fair to those people (which, I really don’t want to be), I’m pro-choice but strong against the death penalty. So I guess it swings both ways.
acosmichippo@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
it doesn’t swing both ways. They are claiming the position of being “pro life” which is clearly hypocritical. You are not claiming to be “pro death” or “anti life”.
sanguinepar@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
That’s a good point, actually. I hadn’t thought it through enough.
mechoman444@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Because it’s not about saving the lives of unborn babies and it never has been.
It’s about curtailing choice.
davidagain@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
They want men to choose who lives or dies. They absolutely do not want women to be in charge of anything. That’s why no exceptions in the case of rape and incest. A man made a decision, they don’t want a woman to have the power to reverse it.
Marx2k@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 weeks ago
These same people also solve seem to give af about the suffering of children outside of the border of the country.
I’ve yet to hear any evangelical cry about dead Palestinian children or the suffering of children on the other side of the American Mexican border.
Gordon@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
The suffering is the point. It’s got nothing to do with morals or human rights or the death penalty or abortion or “Christian values”. It’s all about making “those people” suffer.
Blackmist@feddit.uk 4 weeks ago
Makes more sense when you realise it isn’t about life, but about punishing women for having sex.
ammonium@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
I think that can be explained, but tell me how someone can be in favor of the death penalty but be against assisted suicide.
spizzat2@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
but be against assisted suicide
No free hand outs! You gotta work for your death!
/s
frengo@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
I’m trying to be the devil’s advocate here: one could say that one is an innocent “life” while the other is not.
Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Underlying their shallow morals is a undiagnosed mental condition. More often than not from my perspective its usually a cluster B personality disorder. NPD/BPD or one of the others variants. They simply lack the ability to see their hypocrisy. They lack the basic empathy necessary to realize it. Due to this they a mortally afraid of therapy and are not likely to ever get better. What we have to do is improve identifying them and preventing their illness from destroying those around them. Not likely to happen when so many of them are elected to office. If you haven’t noticed mental health systems in this country are In a shambles. This is not a accident.
jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Punishment fetish.
Letsdothis@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
How come *some people who are against abortion are *also in favor of the death penalty? (Ftfy) Kind of seems like a contradicition/
What contradiction do you speak of? Save a life, take a life. Seems logical doesn’t it?
Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
It ultimately is religious belief.
Religious people believe the soul enters the body at conception, granting personhood, so abortion is murder. They also believe that people put to death will go before God, where they will be judged as evil and sent to Hell for eternal punishment.
Everything else is just window dressing.
UncleGrandPa@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
The common thread is harm and punishment. They wish harm to those they would punish for the transgressions they make up in their heads
Pacattack57@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Because the inmates deserve it. The babies don’t.
gerryflap@feddit.nl 4 weeks ago
I obviously don’t agree with them, but my assumption is that it has to do with maturity/innocence. An unborn child hasn’t done anything wrong. They’re full of opportunity and have a whole life ahead of them. A criminal sentenced for death has I some way done something very wrong. They’ve had their chance and failed.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 4 weeks ago
I have the same question for the opposite as well. Or for being for abortion and also vegan.
blackris@discuss.tchncs.de 4 weeks ago
A (human) mother that carries a growing fetus is a living being a pig, dog or a cow as well. They feel physically and emotionally and can be hurt.
A fetus is, up to a certain point, just a slab of meat.
As a vegan I don’t care about slabs of meat, I care about living beings.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 4 weeks ago
Foetus can also feel pain and hurt, though
pyre@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
I’m a non vegan dude but this is gonna be my easiest argument… here goes:
consent.
barsquid@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Well, one difference is that the prisoner is not housed inside an unwilling woman’s womb. That’s not where steaks and pork chops come from either. Hope that helps.
Toneswirly@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
welcome to high school debate class, where we think about issues with more nuance than most politicians.