Those who oppose the Death Penalty should also appose abortion on demand.

I often hear people denunciate the practice of capital punishment because it's inhmane. Although I disagree, I understand the perspective. What puzzles me is the large percentage of those whom I discuss the issue are, in fact; pro-choice. Some become reticent when I include partial birth abortion, but still support the practice for reasons other than the mothers' life being endangered.
I find that to be a conundrum. . .

Thank you SoutherngentFL for starting this interesting debate.

Some people take different viewpoints or have different reasons for their stance on the death penalty. For example, you may be opposed to the death penalty because it is inconsistent with other punishments, or simply because killing is wrong.

The same goes for abortion. However, those who are pro-choice support the mother's free choice because they believe a mother's free will should precede those of the fetus', or the facts: during the window for abortion, a fetus is technically not alive. Therefore, it leads one to believe that abortion is not wrong, because there is nothing living that would be killed. Either way, that same person may oppose the death penalty because they believe it is inhumane to kill. To sum it up:

Death penalty = killing
Pro-choice abortion, to many people =/= killing.

So these two ideals would be mutually exclusive.

I understand the reasoning, but the idea that a fetus isn't a person is an idea I can't get my mind around. When my wife carried our two daughters, they both had different personalities before they were even born. The oldest was very active, and even stubborn before her birth. I can remember a few times she would "stretch out" in my wifes womb. My wife would use her hands and push Beckys' arm (or leg, whichever it was, I don't know) back in to stop the discomfort. You could see Becky "skap" the spot and insistently put her extremity back where it was! Her sister was quiete, and seemed to sleep quite a bit (her favorite hobby to this day!).
I said all of that to conclude that fetus is indeed a baby, a person, and to dehumanize the most innocent of the innocent; while imputing humanity to those who've apparently repudiated humanity is perplexing to me.

While I think a mother has the right to save her own life, almost any other situation would be inhumane. In the same vein, I think there are exception to the application of capital punishment.

"When my wife carried our two daughters, they both had different personalities before they were even born. The oldest was very active, and even stubborn before her birth. I can remember a few times she would "stretch out" in my wifes womb . . . "

This is not necessarily related to personality; you cannot determine one's personality without communicating with them, and you cannot communicate with a fetus [in a way that would yield a personality]. This could be due to a more rapid growth than her sister, an uncomfortable position in the womb, or a myriad of other possibilities.

"I said all of that to conclude that fetus is indeed a baby, a person, and to dehumanize the most innocent of the innocent; while imputing humanity to those who've apparently repudiated humanity is perplexing to me."

Expanding on my earlier point about people having different viewpoints or reasons about their stance on abortion, some people are pro-choice because life does not start at conception. Some people do not believe that certain stages of a fetus are/is human, and they have no problem terminating the pregnancy if they are not killing anything. However, they may be against the death penalty because they believe killing is wrong.

To conclude, to some people, abortion and the death penalty are mutually exclusive; they do not conflict with said person's morals. Therefore, they should not necessarily be pro-life if they oppose the death penalty.

I understand your premise, but the premise is incorrect. As I understand the position, a person who fits the original proposition does so from the perspective that taking a human life doesn't warrant losing your own. They take this position for the following reasons: 1. Two "wrongs" don't make a right". 2. What give the government the "right" to decide to take a persons life? 3. They find it incredulous that causing another death is a valid recompense for the initiation of the first death.

-All thoughtful and sincere opinions. Opinions to be admired, and respected, whether one agress with, or disagrees with their conclusions.

From hearts and minds that are big enough to forgive and have pity on those who showed no pity. It's a magnanimous position.

Now, the basis for the on demand pro-choice perspectives are
1. It's a womans right to decide if she wants children. There are several cliche's involved with this premise "keep your laws off of my body" is the one that comes to mind immediately. 2. It's not a baby until the mother says it's a baby. 3. If a mother doesn't want a baby, the baby is better off dead anyway.

Some would say these are high-minded thoughts. I cannot see the justification for that perspective. I see it more as "Self-serving". Someone who dsagrees might state that pro-life people live in a fantasy world where the "complexities" of life aren't understood.

The common thread I see in each of these positions is the absence of concern for the victims of each scenario. For the victim of murder, it's true that killing the killer won't bring them back to life. What isn't factored into the scenario is at least two-fold: 1. Murder is an assult on humanity itself, so all of mankind becomes the victim, and must be protected. 2. The families of the murdered are due recompence: we call it justice. This brings the victims family a place to begin their closure. A place to say this is where I begin to live without the person taken from me. To conclude otherwise, in my opinion is naive.

For the victim of the abortion, there is no justice, no recompence. While the mother may have her relief, she leaves behind a victim that no one but the person who stopped his/her heart ever sees. In the name of freedom, in the name of personal rights, the victim has no voice. Those who disagree explain this is simplistic and void of deeper understanding. Society must sacrifice some to insure the continuity of humanity and the individual within. To posture the fetus isn't alive is a scientific falsehood. it qualifies in everyway as an entity that lives. To say it isn't human is just as false, any dna test will confirm that this is indeed a human. To posture otherwise is in opposition to scientific fact.

The positions are about convenience, not society, not the victims, and certainly aren't consistent.

ps, good to have you back. ..

I will letter my points to make referencing easier.

"I understand your premise, but the premise is incorrect. As I understand the position, a person who fits the original proposition does so from the perspective that taking a human life doesn't warrant losing your own. They take this position for the following reasons: 1. Two "wrongs" don't make a right". 2. What give the government the "right" to decide to take a persons life? 3. They find it incredulous that causing another death is a valid recompense for the initiation of the first death."

a) This is true; those who oppose the death penalty believe that two wrongs =/= one right. The two wrongs in this case a BOTH killings, so they believe that killing is wrong. They meet the first criteria of the resolution ("Those who oppose the death penalty").

"Now, the basis for the on demand pro-choice perspectives are
1. It's a womans right to decide if she wants children. There are several cliche's involved with this premise "keep your laws off of my body" is the one that comes to mind immediately. 2. It's not a baby until the mother says it's a baby. 3. If a mother doesn't want a baby, the baby is better off dead anyway."

b) The viewpoint I presented in earlier rounds was similar to your second point: some people believe abortion is OK because it is not yet a live human being, so it is not being killed.

"To posture the fetus isn't alive is a scientific falsehood. it qualifies in everyway as an entity that lives. To say it isn't human is just as false, any dna test will confirm that this is indeed a human. To posture otherwise is in opposition to scientific fact."

c) This is not a debate about whether abortion is right or wrong, or whether science is right or wrong. Science does contradict itself at times; this gives us the motivation to find the truth. Until the truth is revealed, some scientists will believe that life begins at conception, and some will not. This, in turn, will affect the people, and they will choose which idea they agree with. Global warming, for example. Some scientists believe it is a problem; others do not believe it exists. Until we find the complete truth, people will decide whether they believe in it or not.

So, referring to points a and b, let us assume there is a group of people who think killing is wrong (point a; those who oppose the death penalty). Now, let us assume some of those people do not believe life begins right at conception; so aborting the fetus before it is alive is not killing, and therefore not wrong (point b; NOT opposing abortion on demand).

So you can see that in some cases, these two ideals do not conflict, and therefore, that "Those who oppose the death penalty should [not always] oppose abortion on demand".

Thanks again for starting this debate.