Is there a valid dichotomy (yeah I'm tired of the word too, but there it is) between Pro-Choice and Pro-Life in the abortion debate? It was posited here (in the other topic that's not fit for dinner parties) that it's inconstistent to protest the death penalty and not protest abortion equally, that pro-life is pro-life across the board, that it's just that simple. Might it be more complex, or is it just that simple?

Furthermore, is it consistent to support a war and be "Pro-Life", at all?

You can be pro-choice and against the death penalty.

A valid justification is that you believe that the government should have as little dealings in the personal lives of people as possible. 

That stance would put you pro-choice, and against the death penalty.

In other words, the government should not be able to dictate what a woman will do with her body.
Furthermore, the government should not have the power or ability to put someone to death.

Jessica

I see abortion as a decision made between a doctor and patient.  I do not believe that the government or insurance companies should be involved in medical decisions.  Haven't we had enough of that sort of intervention with the problems we face with our life's situation?

However, I consider all life sacred.  I believe that the number of abortions can be significantly reduced with proper education and human services to those who are most likely to become pregnant.  Why try to fix the problem after the fact?  Unfortunately, those who are vehemently against abortion are completely closed to most forms of practical prevention, ie; education, contraceptives, and even the fact that young kids enjoy having sex regardless of their beliefs.  After all, it feels good.

I believe that my perspective is consistent. I do not support killing in the womb for convenience. I do not support war for greed or power.  I believe that government's role in dealing with violent offenders is to remove them from the population to protect society.  That does not require execution.  Someday, we may find a reason... you know, something in their brain behind these actions and might be able to help them.  (now... doesn't that sound familiar?)

See the connections?  It always comes back to us in some familiar vein doesn't it?  Hold the torch!

Chin up!

Cindi

I believe every woman should have her own right to do what she wants!

As I am the one who raised the question of consistency, I guess I should comment.

I can almost buy the argument Jessica makes that keeping the government out of personal lives could make this consistent, but something just doesn't seem to fit. 

I understand that some people believe the death penalty is wrong, and their reasons for it.  I also understand that some people believe the death penalty should be used, and their reasons for that also.

Same for the abortion argument.

Taken singularly, valid arguments can be made for both sides of either issue.     

I guess, the bottom line revolves around at what point is the fetus considered a human life?  Some argue it is at conception, others at the instant it is born, and still others argue that it falls at various points in between.  My own personal opinion falls more along the line of it becomes a human life when it can survive outside the womb.  This is my opinion and yours may vary.  As it is a belief question, there is no right or wrong answer.

However, unless you believe the fetus only becomes a human the instant it is completely born, you have to admit that at some point there is a real human growing within the woman.  Our government has been extremely inconsistent on this point.  It is legal to "terminate the pregnancy" through a process known as "partial birth abortion" which happens minutes before the baby would have been born, but if you knock down a pregnant woman while stealing her purse and the "baby" dies, you can be charged with manslaughter (or worse).  The fetus either IS or ISN'T a human; it cannot be both.

If one takes a position that, at some point prior to being born, a fetus becomes a human, then at that point an abortion is not removing a problem, it is stopping a life.  If stopping a life here is OK, why is not the death penalty OK?  That is the consistency question.

If you believe that a fetus is not a human until it has been born, then there is no inconsistency.

It was not my intention to incite a pro-choice vs pro-life argument, nor am I trying to say one should be for or against the death penalty.  Each of us make our own choices in this matter, and should have valid reasons why we believe that way.  My only question, based on my personal beliefs as stated above, was how you can support a pro-choice and anti-death penalty stance and be logically consistent.

Hope this helps explain my thought processes when the comment was originally made on another thread.

......Laurry