Did I handle this right?

[TimothyC]

On a board I mod (I'm Marius Roi there), I got into a debate with one of the admins about the differences between Abortion and the Death Penalty from a moral perspective.

Here is one intriguing question that I gathered, ironically, from an episode of the West Wing. If certain Christian groups are pro-life to the point where they want a legal ban on all abortions, but yet also advocate the use of the death penalty, is that not a contradiction? Can you be against one type of "murder" and for another type of "murder"?

Simple really.

When you comit a capital offence (Rape, Murder, etc.) you break your contract with society. Hence you've lost the right for society to protect your life. A fetus hasn't broken that contract, and thus is given the protections nessesary to ensure life.

I agree that when an law is broken the citizen has broken their contract with the state and its society, but does that give the state the right to take the criminal's life?

Yes

Yes

I think it's a bit more complicated than that, for example if a person was defending themselves from an attack, that's not nessesarily a direct breaking of the social contract, but Trujew here is right. I would like to point out that while I am personally opposed to abortion, I don't have any evidence to support making it illegal (even though I dispute the basis for Roe v. Wade [I think it's a states issue]).

Well, first, I must ask what is your reason for saying that the state has the right to take life? You say they do, but do not give any logic why.

I agree with you Marius, I am opposed to abortion, yet the state should not make the decision for someone on this issue. As well, as a male, I also believe to a point the maxim "no uterus, no opinion". That is not to say that I can't have an opinion on abortion, but I definately have no right forcing my beliefs on any female.

Marius, you are also correct to say that abortion is a states issue, (Article X of the US constitution states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.". Which is why I am not too worried about a Bush Supreme Court appointee overturning Roe v. Wade. About 25 states had already legalized abortion in their states before R v. W, and about 15 had banned it. 10 other states made no decision because of the pending R v. W decision anyways. So, an overturn of R v. W would result in 10 states having to put abortion laws in motion, whether they permit it or not.

There are certain criminals which to capture them, or incarsurate them would be probitivly expensive either in terms of money or other human life. Serial Killers, Serial Rapists, Certain terrorists (OBL), would fall into this catagory.

The expenses of killing convicts or incarcerating them for life is one that definately can be debated.
But let us move back into the moral question, and I pose it like this: Should the state have the choice of when someone lives or dies? Is that not a question that should be reserved for God, because he is the ultimate life giver?

Except it's not the state that makes the decision, it's the Jury that convicts the individual.

I will admit you have a very good point, but there is the matter of separation of Church and State. I feel that if I made the same point, that some would declair that I am trying to break down said separation.

Oh and I didn't break the link because the forum where this happened is mostly dead (Less than a dozen posting members) and thus poses next to no risk at all.

[SoX]

Should the state have the choice of when someone lives or dies? Is that not a question that should be reserved for God, because he is the ultimate life giver?

If it is God's choice for someone to die, then isnt he pro-euthanasia and abortion?