Pro-Life and Capital Punishment

Ever notice that many anti-abortionists support the death penalty?

On the one hand, they claim that life is precious and that having an abortion is killing a sentient being. Even in cases where the woman is raped or when childbirth endangers the life of the parent.

On the other hand, they condone the death penalty in certain cases.

It seems to them that the government should take away the rights of individuals to make a decision they will live with… But, when it comes to capital punishment, it’s all right for the government to sanction killing a full-developed sentient being.

What’s up with the hypocrisy?

Abortion or Adoption? Reverse the b to make d and add p instead of a R.

The key is life and those in the womb have no choices…most murders are by choice and if you can’t control your chemicals you should be retroactively aborted. They should do prenatal pet scans to abort the murders with damaged corpus collustroms. 39 out of 41 murderers have them…the others are just manic machines and they might be safe to society.

Good old America, what a civilised society you live in. And with Bush at the healm, things surely could not get any better.

It’s ironic that your comment reiterated my original post.

You came to the conclusion that: “The key is life” (anti-abortion), but, you state your premise as: “They should do prenatal pet scans to abort the murders with damaged corpus collustroms” (capital punishment/pro-abortion).

No offense, but it’s this type of flawed logic that makes the issue problematic.

In a democracy like ours, we are subject to individuals with fundamentalist beliefs. I suspect the founding fathers consciously separated church from state to prevent fundamentalism ideals from overriding logic/common sense.

Dear Clemson,

I assume (and hope) that this was not meant seriously. The study referred to here did not find anything more than a higher incidence of cases of reduced activity (not necessarily damage) in the corpus callosum (and some other structures of the brain) in a sample of 41 murderers when compared to a normal control group. The same reduction in brain activity can also be found in thousands of non-murderers, however. Moreover, no causative association between these abnormalities and violent behaviour was established. Furthermore, the murderers studied in this experiment had all pleaded not guilty for reasons of insanity, which means that these results cannot necessarily be extrapolated to other murderers.


Female Feticide
by Gregory Koukl

Would you believe that there is a choice the “pro-choicers” do not want you to make?

I have some opening comments I’d like to make in the wake of the Women’s Conference in China. Frankly, I haven’t been that interested in it. I know that Christian groups dealing with the family, family politics, American culture have been very watchful of this meeting and have followed it closely. I’ve had the feeling that their literature may be just a little alarmist, to be honest with you, although I think the basic considerations are important.
This is a women’s conference that is trying to chart the world’s agenda for the women’s movement for the next decade. You can’t just ignore this kind of thing because it is going to have an impact. It will have its biggest impact, I think, in the area of human rights, specifically of abortion. That’s the area I am most concerned with.

To be honest with you, I actually think that much of the women’s movement is extreme and is unsupported by the majority of women. I think the extreme elements of it, those who want to ignore or deny the difference between men and women, or are trying to make their roles exactly the same, are doomed to failure because they are fighting nature. In other words, women bear children and, because of that natural function, there are certain things that will be true about women, such as the way they comport themselves, and also in their ability to compete with men in the open market. I don’t think that women are mentally incapable. I think they have a different role because they are child-bearers and nurturers. I think men and women are at their best when they are fulfilling their roles. I think men are at their best when they are hunters/warriors, providers and protectors. There are variations of that theme and I have no problem with that, but to try to pretend there is no difference between the two is doomed to failure.

The idea of trying to make women the cultural carbon copy of men is doomed to failure. It’s going to fail from within, not because you have a bunch of male chauvinists, but because women are women and men are men and that is the way it is. They each have natures they are fulfilling, and their natures manifest themselves in certain cultural forms.

I’m not concerned about the whole movement. I think much of it is extreme and will die a death from within because it does not fit the world the way it really is. I am concerned about the abortion issue, because now you have not only a movement dying its death, but you have children dying a death.

One of the things I was rather mystified by is the references to aborting female children. Some called this female feticide and others actually referred to it specifically as murder. I have always felt that people, generally speaking, are deeply confused in their ethical thinking, and no better evidence for this can be found than in the daily letters to the editor of your local newspaper.

I read the letters to the editor, just for the fun of it, and I read some of the responses to the issues to see how people are so confused in their ethical thinking. I saw responses to some of the literature that has come through the L.A. Times about female feticide. There was actually an interesting Op/Ed piece from September 6, 1995, called “The Ultimate Sexual Degradation,” written by Catherine Dowling. I wondered whether she was either completely confused or if she was a pro-lifer in disguise because she was arguing that the ultimate sexual degradation is to kill females while they are still in the womb. She calls it female infant murder, which is a rather strong word to be used for abortion coming from a feminist or an apparent feminist.
Catherine Dowling is a family physician at the U.S.C. School of Medicine. She says “The ultimate act of the devaluation of a human being is an inflicted death. In battle we devalue the enemy so that we can more easily kill him. In female infanticide we devalue the worth of half of mankind.” She talks about the problem of this search and destroy mission in China where women take ultrasounds to find out if their unborn child is a girl. If it is, then they kill it. Of course, it is the absolute bane of the feminists to hear this, which always struck me as unusual because up to this time they have always claimed that abortion on demand is a woman’s right. Now all of a sudden they object. Now, there are apparently limitations to this constitutional, universal, God-given right to abortion on demand, and that limitation is if you want to abort the child if it’s a female.

Dowling says further, “If a female fetus floats across the ultrasound screen, her genitalia condemn her to death in utero.” Catherine Dowling continues, “Nor is the problem of female infanticide in or out of the uterus limited to China.” Here’s what mystifies me. There have been some letters to the editor that have raised just this issue. I’m not sure if Catherine Dowling is trying to say, “This is terrible. This female infanticide.” Feminists accept her argument, and without realizing it they buy into a different ethic–the value of the unborn child. Then if you say that female feticide is immoral, by what line of reasoning do you say that male feticide is not also immoral? That may be what Catherine Dowling is doing. If it is, then she’s got quite a deft hand.

But the question I read in the letters to the editor that raised this particular issue was this: What does this argument actually mean? Does this mean that only female babies are valuable? Or does it mean that it is okay to devalue humans by killing them, but not to devalue females by killing them as females? It seems to me that this is either bad thinking or the most perverse form of sexism. It’s okay to kill unborn humans but you can’t kill unborn humans if you are killing them because they are female. Then, of course, the other question that comes up is, what about female infanticide right here in the U.S.? What? We do that here? Yes, to the tune of 1.5 million a year, judging that probably half of those aborted are females. This, to me, is the most confused of all thinking in the abortion issue, and the feminists really show their hands when they argue in this fashion.

In other words, if you didn’t know the sex of the child you could kill them, but since you know the sex of the child and you choose to kill them because of the sex of the child then you are immoral and it is an abomination. I don’t get that.

I want to read some of the responses in the letters to the editor. This is where you will see all kinds of confused thinking. I am willing to grant that Catherine Dowling is trying to pull a fast one on the pro- abortionists here, by appealing to their natural bias to women such that they condemn female feticide. Then, once they condemn female feticide, she can ask the question, “Now how can you not at the same time condemn male feticide?” In any event, I don’t give that same kind of credit to some of these writers. Here’s what one of them said: “Dowling passes quickly over the idea of the U.S. delegate equating female feticide with the benefit of reducing world population, as if such a consideration were unworthy of serious comment.” She goes on to say, “We should consider the problem of world population and maybe we should use abortion as a way of population control.”
Now, this sentence is what gets me: “Female feticide is a potentially effective, if cruel, solution to further future over-population.” What is cruel? Why is female feticide cruel? It is not cruel to the woman, it seems to me. She is the one who wants the abortion. It can only be cruel to the one being killed. Why does it matter whether it is a male or a female? It shouldn’t make any difference. It is still cruel. If it is cruel, then how do we justify it? I’m confused.

Another writer says, “What needs to be denounced is the sex selectivity that is a cultural tradition that has been practiced in Chinese families for centuries. Infanticide regarding baby girls must be roundly condemned by all nations.” I agree. “Sex selective abortions should be ended, although abortion as a general birth control method should be preserved.” What is that?

What makes a sex selective abortion immoral but abortion in general moral? I just don’t get it. In other words, if you didn’t know the sex of the child you could kill them, but since you know the sex of the child and you choose to kill them because of the sex of the child then you are immoral and it is an abomination. I don’t get that.

I have never seen anyone develop that argument, and I have never seen anyone explain how the unborn child is not valuable enough to save. The value does not accrue to the unborn child. That’s not the issue, because if it did then no abortion would be okay. The real crime here is what? Not wanting to have a girl. Why is it a crime to not want to have a girl? It’s not a crime to not want a girl, it’s a crime to abort one. But you’ve just said that it’s okay to abort unborn children. It’s not the little baby girl’s life that you are concerned about, it’s the reason you’re concerned about. This makes no sense to me whatsoever. It just shows the absolute, utter moral confusion on the one hand, and on the other hand it shows how movements oftentimes produce just the thing they hate.

For instance, I think that the civil rights movement has produced racist people. In other words, it has produced people who are incapable of seeing anything except in terms of color. Everything is color to these people. I think the women’s movement, which started out of a concern for gender mistreatment, now has produced people who see everything in terms of gender and are fiercely committed to their own gender. Which means they are what? They are sexists. That’s what a sexist person is.

The chief moral offense here is not taking a life, the chief moral offense is an offense against females. Not female persons mind you, but females in the abstract. Did you see that? Their offense is not against female persons. You can abort female persons. Their offense is against females in the abstract.

Now if that doesn’t tell you that there is an agenda here, I don’t know what does.

This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show “Stand to Reason,” with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1995 Gregory Koukl

For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON • (562) 595-7333 •

Nice article Herb…

Another example of nonsequitor reasoning…

The author’s issue (as is mine) is not necessarily about abortion being right or wrong, it’s more about the contradiction and incoherence in logic that follows.

If ALL life is valuable and someone considers himself or herself pro-life, then ALL life should be saved.

PS. Interesting info Robin; sounds like you are in the medical field.

Personally I am against both the death penality and abortion, both kill. A baby in womb IS NOT A LIQUID BLOB. It is a human life.

I find it incredibly hypocritical how many people are so vocal against the death penality yet find abortion acceptable. I am not sure why those so active fighting the death penality are not also as active against abortion.

Not sure why a cheap shot at President Bush was taken, seemed a little out off topic. I guess some people just can’t help themselves…

Very coherent, and logical.

In this case, it MAY look hypocritical, but many people are against the death penalty for different reasons than “pro-life.” For example some may argue that an embryo is NOT a sentient being. Second, some may support abortion in the case of rape and/or danger to the mothers life; and assisted suicide for terminally ill patients, but be against government sanction killing without being pro-life. However, when one considers himself or herself pro-life, they should logically be against ALL killings.

That was no cheap shot. Bush served for six years as the 46th Governor of the State of Texas, during which time there were 152 executions.

Open your eyes.

Exactly where is the logical contradiction? The morality of abortion and the morality of descriminatory abortion en mass are two completely separate issues and only contain one common demominator. The argument, in the article, that Catherine Dowling is pushing is not regarding the result, but is the cause.
I think you’ll find the the article itself is non sequitur, utilizing ad hominem, ad misericordiam, dicto simpliciter, and false dilemma. Ironic that it should contain so many logical fallacies when attacking anothers logic …
And BTW, with regard to Chris_p’s post, simply agreeing with your personal opinion does not make a statement logical. Particularly when it implies on a premise based on belief - not fact.

Chris, many opponents of the death penalty hold their position not for the value of human life alone, but for the greater implications that it has for society in general.

Not saying that Abortion is right or wrong. I am ambivalent on the topic and as a result value well thought through, concise and logical arguments on both sides of the debate, however this article is none of these and is really only designed to reaffirm those who already share the authors beliefs (ie: preaching to the converted)- and in this it has obviously been a success.

Thanks for the link, I just wish ideas could be exchaged professionally. I do not agree with Presidents Bush in regards to his stance on the death penality, let me be clear on that.

I accept you do not like President Bush, I don’t agree with everything he does. It’s like everything in life, you have to weigh all the positions any politician takes and come to a conclusion as to who to support.

Minority Report anyone? Scarface…if one person kills 20 people, is that fuzzy math? What if some things are predicted? Perhaps Robin1 will give us clear info if this is possible or not with some numbers. All life is precious? What about Ted Bundy?

just a quick thought on the original topic-

imagine for one moment a 13 year old girl who gets raped by a 42 year old man. this is a situation i know well.

would you still argue adoption? the trauma of the rape, of carrying the child, of giving birth, of then giving it up… not to mention the medical implications for both the mother and child.

Just as some people support the death penalty in certain specific situations, so people support abortion selectively. It won’t ever be a clear-cut issue.

p.s. antonin scalia wants to repeal roe v. wade–> he sucks

I am also concerned with logical relation(s). As I am ALSO ambivalent about the issue of abortion. I never said the article is without flaws. As a matter of fact there are a lot of unwarranted assumption amongst other things. Having taken that into consideration, my comment was in relation to the contradiction of feminist movement being for women rights and the authors implication that feminist accepted Catherine Dowling premise. You have chosen to focus on the logic of the article. While I focused on the logic of ONE of the main points of the article.

On Cris p statement: I agreed with the LOGIC of his statement and NOT his OPINION. Like I said I am also AMBIVALENT about abortion. I made that clear when I said my issue is about contradictions and inconstancies more so than if something is morally write or wrong.

Also, I find it ironic that you answered Chris p question in a similar fashion.

You stated: “Chris, many opponents of the death penalty hold their position not for the value of human life alone, but for the greater implications that it has for society in general.”

When I said: “In this case, it MAY look hypocritical, but many people are against the death penalty for different reasons than “pro-life.” For example some may argue that an embryo is NOT a sentient being. Second, some may support abortion in the case of rape and/or danger to the mothers life; and assisted suicide for terminally ill patients, but be against government sanction killing without being pro-life.”

As you can see, we are basically saying the SAME thing.

Until there is a medical proceedure that can transfer an embryo from one uterus to another, there will be abortion.
A woman has a right to govern what happens to & in her body.
There is NO 100% birth control & unwanted, unplanned pregnancies happen.
Whether it be our great grandmothers jumping off the woodpile to induce an miscarraige or our mothers (or their contemporaries) going to a back alley butcher in the 60’s, it has & will happen. The question is then will we make these women pay with their lives & their health for this??
I protested & fought in Canada for the right to legal, safe abortions & would & will again if necessary.
As for those “pro life” protestors… where the hell are they when that unwanted child needs to be adopted, fed, changed or rescued form an abusive home??? Their interest in the unborn stops when it is born… THAT is dispicable.

“Pro-life” & “Pro-choice” are political words, they don’t mean crap. There is no conviction behind any of them just preferences. You will never hear a politician that is pro-life say “thou shall not kill”.

Read my answer to Dazed. My issues with your ORIGINAL statement Clemson was on the one hand you were pro life, when it comes to abortion, and on the other you seem to support the death penalty.

All I’m concerned here is with LOGIC people.


I disagree…

Although the words are political they serve a purpose to relay a position. Pro-Life was once called anti- abortion but was changed PARTIALLY to relay a positive connotation of supporting life over murder. The hypocrisy comes in when those same politician support capital punishment.

The contradictions are clear.

everyone needs a chance but if you are given life and you are stealing souls you shouldn’t be alowed to live if you can’t stop destruction.