• C126@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 hour ago

    My understanding is that they consider it ok to kill someone who committed a heinous crime but not ok to kill someone who is completely innocent.

    • atx_aquarian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      42 minutes ago

      This is exactly how I used to see things when I grew up in a conservative echo chamber.

      And now that I recognize a person’s right to choose and tend to think capital punishment should probably* not be legal, I’ll add that it’s not that my underlying beliefs changed, just how I now understand things. Some people do deserve capital punishment. And innocent people should be protected. But personhood doesn’t start at conception, a person conceiving has a right to decide what happens to their body, and the state can never be trusted to administer capital punishment.

      *I say “probably” because I also think it might be necessary to allow it in extreme cases. My reasoning is that if people don’t believe the justice system will adequately punish, they have incentive and no ultimate detergent for taking justice into their own hands.

  • beefbot@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 hour ago

    They’re both cruel to anyone “below” them (this is a simplistic argument.) They’re easy to cry wolf about in order to draw people over to your side, people who vote and act emotionally

  • Nosavingthrow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    5 hours ago

    IS it a contradiction? I don’t agree with the death penalty or anti-abortion position, but I don’t see some essential link between either position. You can hold two different beliefs about two different things is how come.

  • linearchaos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    In the end, it’s because they’re told that that’s the way it is.

    Abortion makes a an easy political point. Vote for the children.

    Being hard on crime and executing people, That’s another easy political point. Vote for the law abiding citizens.

    They don’t care that those two things are at odds They don’t care about life or death. They care about their own exact situation, and don’t really give a rat’s ass about anyone else. They believe that the team they’re backing gives them the best advantage, and that’s absolutely all they care about. Beyond that, it’s simply consuming and regurgitating the propaganda, self-perpetuating.

  • Free_Opinions@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 hours 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 hour 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.

    • Barometer3689@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour 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.

    • beefbot@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 hour 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.

    • purplemonkeymad
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour 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.

    • umt@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 hours ago

      It’s a pastime of liberal pundits to point out that the pro-life governor of some flyover state also supports the death penalty and so on and so forth. We get incredulous and infuriated at their blatant hypocrisy. We call them stupid, which really sets them off […] They don’t think of themselves as self-serving hypocrites or idiots who can’t keep their facts straight long enough to form a cogent argument in continuity with the rest of their ideology. We try to describe this as “cognitive dissonance” or other give other armchair diagnosis that doesn’t fully capture what’s going on. I’d like to give them more credit than that. They clearly believe in something, and in that context their words and actions would make sense, but it’s not what they’re self-advertising when you ask what they believe in.

      From still the best description of american conservative thought I’ve read: an essay by u/kin7es: https://wiki.dlma.com/belief-system-of-republicans

      • kautau@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Everyone has a spot on the big food pyramid of the socio-political hierarchy. Good, smart, and hardworking people of merit make their way to the top. Bad, dumb, and lazy people go to the bottom. For convenience sake, this hierarchy is color-coded. In a zero-sum world, everyone who gets to the top has to knock someone down a rung to make room.

        I would argue this is how republican voters think. That they’re in the right because they are voting for the right of the individual. But on the other hand I think Republican policy makers give zero shits about a person’s self worth and actualization but rather they know that they need to feed the machine and we need the poor babies born to do so, and on the other hand they can demonstrate some form of moral high ground by deciding life and death.

        There’s no death penalty for defrauding elections, molding the healthcare (or really any corporate) system to work for harm and profit, avoiding taxation through infinite shell companies and offshore bank accounts. Those things are celebrated as “beating the system”

        Still to this day everyone that claims “Plandemic” is chasing some invisible elite power structure that somehow only includes democrats, without ever getting mad at the corporations that profited immensely off developing covid vaccines and charging market price for them as a portion of the world was dying.

  • november@lemmy.vg
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Kind of seems like a contradiction

    They don’t care. There’s no point in calling conservatives out on hypocrisy. Only a very small number of them will give a shit, and those will be the ones who were already having doubts.

  • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    8 hours 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.

  • CM400@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Just guessing here, but I’d assume it’s because the unborn have potential and the bad guys had their chance. I don’t agree, but that’s what I assume being around some people like that…

    • bamfic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      An unwanted unplanned baby is punishment for having sex outside of marriage.

      Death penalty is punishment for being convicted of murder.

      It’s perfectly consistent when you look at it all about punishment.

      The cruelty is indeed the point

  • vzq@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    13 hours ago

    As someone recently told me, they don’t worry about saving lives, they worry about saving souls.

    You need to abide by the quaint rules of the magical sky daddy for that, even if they don’t make sense.

    • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Except clearly any aborted fetus would immediately go to heaven based on what’s written in the bible. In fact, heaven should be absolutely completely full of dead babies based on miscarriages, stillbirths, etc. if you believe that they get a soul at the moment of conception.

      So that logic doesn’t really make sense either. Which is par for the course.

      • slickgoat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Actually, nobody goes to heaven when they die (according to the bible). Everyone must wait until judgement day when all the graves, etc, open and we all face judgement at that point. This surprised me when I first learned it because it goes against all the Christian culture I’ve ever been taught and experienced.

        So grandma isn’t currently in heaven no matter how good she was.

      • vzq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Uhh no? Non-baptized souls go to limbo according to Christian theology.

        • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          12 hours ago

          That depends on which flavor of Christianity you’re looking at, but even the Catholics don’t think they go to Limbo, the pope had an entire study done on it, and the result was “we hope they go to heaven but we don’t know”

          A lot of the other denominations don’t subscribe to the original sin shtick, and therefore babies would go to heaven even without being baptized.

          • mrcleanup@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 hours ago

            I always loved the “do uncontacted remote tribes that haven’t heard of God or Jesus go to heaven?” question. So far everyone has answered yes. And then you realize that Christians could save everyone, everywhere, forever, just by destroying all their literature, not teaching religion, and letting it die with them. One sacrificial generation and everyone is saved forever.

            But they won’t do it because of greed and pride, the core aspects of their belief system.

      • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        I was juuuuuuust about to explain how making sense isn’t a requirement to them, until I saw your last sentence. Then I knew you already get it.

    • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      I dont think it really has anything to do with that. A state recently sued due to abortion and teen pregnancy reduction efforts leading to decreased teenage pregnancy rates arguing something along the lines of our populations are going down and it will cost us in population, political representation, and federal resources.

      This is about cheap/free labor, disenfranchising women, and maintaining a permanent disabled and poverty-stricken underclasses that keep everyone on up in line with the hierarchy

  • Sibbo@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Arguably, an unborn baby cannot be guilty of anything. But an adult sentenced to death is often guilty of some horrible crime. So if you accept killing as a punishment, there is no contradiction.

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Until you realize that our court system is FULL of false arrests, and the courts have some stupid high number like 98% conviction rate.

      They say “take the deal, or the court will fuck you”.

      2 years vs 30 years.

      And then later they run a second trial for something else that has a death penalty as the outcome. The jury is shown this guy, already in prison, for a semi-related charge. Already convicted of the other charge. So his ability to appear innocent is already swayed. And now suddenly there’s no deal. The court goes full hammer. The jury is made to believe he did it 100%.

      And he can’t say he didn’t do it, and wasn’t even there, because he ALREADY pleaded guilty to the other charge which would place him there.

      So now you got a populace, who wasn’t in either court session, not seeing how this escalated, and not willing to believe our court system may be flawed. Just kill the criminal and move on, right?

      • bluGill@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        You are overstating it. all evidence I can find is only a small percentage are not guilty. Of course that small possibility is enough for me to be against the death pentalty. If we had a way to be 100% sure of guilt I’d favor death but since we don’t I can’t go that far.