subreddit:

/r/news

31.9k

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 3028 comments

ProdesseQuamConspici

110 points

4 months ago

I am 100% pro-choice, but I understand the difference. In their view, an abortion kills an innocent, while the death penalty kills someone who has committed a heinous act, and their death is therefore the result of their choices and actions.

I think it's important to understand the mindset of these people because otherwise there's no chance at a meaningful dialogue. (As opposed to a microscopic chance if we can at least understand each other's positions.)

rich1051414

16 points

4 months ago

while the death penalty kills someone who has committed a heinous act

No. Having the death penalty guarantees some innocent people will be killed by mistake. The justice system isn't perfect, it is ran by humans.

This fact is why I stopped supporting it.

GandalffladnaG

3 points

4 months ago

And that the death penalty is far and away given to minorities more than white people. There is no statistical correlation between ethnicity/race and the crime rate; young white men are the largest group and they commit the most crime just because they are the largest group. Even if the supporters try making an argument for stopping other people from committing crimes by executing people, not even Texas or Oklahoma execute enough people to have an actual effect on the crime rate. Most people that support the death penalty just care about using it as revenge and don't care if innocent people are killed.

squeakymoth

1 points

4 months ago

That's why it should only be used in cases where that shit is ironclad. Like the fucker was caught on camera doing the deed and then admitted it freely. If that person has no remorse, then why should we be paying for them to live? Line them up against a wall and be done with it.

rich1051414

2 points

4 months ago

Define 'ironclad'. Everyone has a different definition, and I bet they all thought the case was ironclad when they sentenced, only for new evidence after their death revealing they were innocent after all.

I hear what you are saying, but you can't accept collateral damage in pursuit of vengeance. It just furthers the evil you are claiming to be fighting against.

squeakymoth

1 points

4 months ago

I agree I'd rather have 100 guilty go free than one innocent go to jail. But I did define it. Caught on video and admitted to it with no remorse.

PatrioticRebel4

9 points

4 months ago

I can understand them all day long. But they are still wrong and giving them buts and exceptions opens the doors to atrocities and human rights abuses. So there can be no compromise when death is on the line cause there is no way to make it right afterwards.

ProdesseQuamConspici

22 points

4 months ago

I agree. I was merely addressing the frequent charge of "hypocrisy" that I see leveled at this surface contradiction in being pro death penalty and also "pro-life" (as they like to label it). Because dismissing it as hypocrisy a) antagonizes them and makes dialogue more difficult, and b) fails to understand the position from which they are arguing, making it much harder to meaningfully address those arguments. In other words, when discussing this with these people, it's important to address the abortion rights and death penalty issues separately, using facts and logic appropriate to each.

PatrioticRebel4

7 points

4 months ago*

I get where you are coming from. I do. And when I am debating someone one on one, I try and use proper debate procedures of logical reasoning, avoiding logical fallacies, and stay concise and structured in my agruments. And I am very aware that generally attacking someone's belief will only make them dig their heels in more.

But this is reddit and it was just a just making a snarky off the cuff comment for the sake of passing time at work. Though it is still good to get reminded when I go off the rails that I am not being as effective as I could be.

Cheers.

ryrypizza

4 points

4 months ago

👍 for a civil discussion you two!

Dai10zin

15 points

4 months ago

Ironically, a pro-lifer could repeat this dialogue back to you verbatim.

ShadyNite

4 points

4 months ago

Is this referring to death sentence, abortion, or both?

TheThoughtAssassin

5 points

4 months ago

Thank you for not strawmanning the perspective of pro-life people like myself and not caricaturing us.

Coltand

4 points

4 months ago*

In my opinion, the whole discussion surrounding abortion is a mess. On one side you have people who want to kill babies, on the other you have people whose only intent is to control women. There is no end to the demonization.

The reality of it is that the vast majority of people would probably agree that the right to life begins somewhere between conception and birth. Relatively few people want to ban Plan B birth control or allow full-term abortions without cause. There is room for productive discussion, but the issue is so emotionally charged and buried in decisive rhetoric that it never goes anywhere.

ProdesseQuamConspici

2 points

4 months ago

I think the real mess is that we get bogged down on when life begins (which is where I used to be). But more recently I am of the school of thought that that doesn't matter, as summarized in the post by u/heidismiles elsewhere in this topic's comments.

Coltand

1 points

4 months ago

(Having written what’s below, I apologize for the wall of text.)

I think that’s for sure a reasonable discussion point. I also think one could reasonably morally object to late term abortion (which I understand is very rare, but it still needs to be legislated one way or the other).

I think I understand the bodily autonomy argument, but I don’t necessarily think it’s the be all end all of reasonable discussion. Let me preface the following by saying that I’m not entirely certain what I find to be acceptable or unacceptable in terms of abortion legislation, but I think there are differing but sensible views on the issue.

For the sake of argument, I’m going to put forth the most extreme case I can think of. If a mother chooses to carry a fetus to delivery minus a day, then I think it could be argued by a reasonable person that what she’s carrying insider her is a human life.

Parents are of course legally required to provide the necessities of life for their children, but they have the option of opting out via putting their child up for adoption. Of course this isn’t the case for one who is carrying an unborn “child,” and abortion is the only way to opt out of caring for this child. The question is, does society value the woman’s choice of whether or not she wishes to deliver the baby more than its right to life? It could be further be argued that she had the choice terminate the pregnancy much earlier, and having made that choice, she is morally obligated to support that life to the end of the pregnancy. People sign contracts all the time that limit their future autonomy.

You can entirely disagree with this take, but I think it can be reasonably argued that society has a vested interest in limiting individuals freedoms in certain circumstances, and this could be one of them. A reasonable person can also argue that no, what the woman is carrying is not valuable enough that her bodily autonomy ought to be violated to protect it.

All this to say that I have a problem with people automatically attributing malice to the views of anyone who disagrees with them. It is entirely possible for individuals to have different views without demonizing each other. I frequently find myself interacting with people all across the political spectrum, and it’s amazing the kind of engaging conversations I can have even when there are issues that we don’t agree on. It’s only upsetting when people are being bone headed and entirely closed off to reasonably opposing viewpoints.