I also find it hard to understand how people can be for the death penalty and against abortion. Then you have people like Paul Hill that take the law into their own hands and kill a doctor for performing abortions and a bodyguard who was simply protecting his client.

I don't honestly feel there is a better argument for either position simply because from a religious standpoint I dont' think we should be able to dictate punishment in the form of vengeance or retribution.

When innocent people die in both situations no argument should exist at all. Of course, my opinion.

I can't claim to speak for everyone, but for me it's pretty simple.

The person on death row did something wrong. Probably a lot of things wrong.

The unborn child hasn't done anything.

The person on death row had a choice in his/her destiny. He/she could have chosen not to commit those crimes.

The child didn't have a choice in being concieved.

So you mean to tell me that everyone that has been sentenced to death or has been on death row was guilty? They were all bad people?

Have you or anyone else you know ever been accused of something you didn't do?

And people on death row don't always have a choice in choosing their destiny. If they did not commit any crimes (does happen) their destiny is not for their own choosing...

I'm guessing that most people who are pro-death penalty would answer "no" to this question. White middle class people don't often have worries about being falsely accused of crimes and wrongly convicted. It's too bad really.

Well, what I was trying (in a clumsy way) was to show how it really boils down to valuing life.

Important point here-I would never judge a person who has chosen to have an abortion, it's not my place. Just because I am against the act does not mean I condemn the person who has chosen that route. I think there's enough inner turmoil around that decision no outside criticism is warranted or necessary.

Damasa-When innocent people die in both situations no argument should exist at all. Of course, my opinion.
This is an excellent point. It cuts both ways.

Religion-Upon fertilization, the baby has a soul.
Science-viable
Pro-choice-the extreme would be the freedom to kill the baby anytime the mother chooses. (Partial birth abortions)
Question-At what point -outside the health of the mother-is it NOT OK to kill a baby?

Side note-seems many pro-choice people in the news also support PETA. Hmmmmmmmmm

I don't understand why this is a problem. I'm a pro-choice vegetarian who is against the death penalty.

Well, I don't believe in the death penalty, but I digress from that argument...

Well according to the March for Women's Lives, the term "Women's Rights" incorporates quite a few things...

We won't get into that because it is too OT...

I do not judge any woman who decides to do this; in fact I try not to judge anyone for anything. That said, I cannot act like I do not think this action is wrong. That is my point... I feel as though I am viewed as a chauvinist b/c I do not believe in abortion.

I am sorry; I think it is morally wrong. I am not saying that I feel everyone has to have my moral beliefs, but I cannot say that I will feel it is okay for others to do this when I feel it is quite wrong.
It would be much easier for me to just agree, and I have thought about it, but my conscience will not let me.

So does it come down to either being Pro-Choice or being religious? Why am I closed minded for choosing my side? I feel as though I have thought about this until my brain has bled. Maybe I am just having a catharsis here, but I feel like this is actually a good forum for this debate.

Wow that's another thread! :)

First, I still want to know when is it NOT OK to kill the baby???

Now, PETA and abortion
Partial Birth Abortions have been proven to the satisfaction of many scientists to induce pain. It is still controversial at how early a point the baby feels pain.
A pain expert claims that a form of late-term abortion, banned under a new federal law, would cause a 20-week-old fetus to suffer "severe and excruciating" pain.

"Into the mind unborn" - A Summary New Scientist 19 October 1996, p 40Premature babies can be kept alive from as young as 24 weeks. There is thus a significant overlap between late fetuses and early infants. It remains unclear to what extent reflex reactions or incresed hormone levels indicate a subjective experience of pain.

From Peta Home page-

1.Compare that to-"Commando Chicks. They’re trying to stop the year-round killing of 9 billion birds who are sensitive, feeling beings, just like dogs and cats."..."Warning! This package contains the decomposing corpse of a small, tortured bird," at supermarkets everywhere.
2.(Farmed animals)...they suffer from extreme forms of abuse and neglect, from intensive confinement to forced starvation to body mutilations like debeaking, castration and dehorning without painkillers.
3.PETA has always maintained the commonsense idea that fish, like every other animal, can feel pain and suffer. Now, findings from a new study conducted by Edinburgh University and the Roslin Institute in the U.K. have proved exactly that.
4.Federal law says that in slaughterhouses, cows, pigs, and lambs must be stunned before their throats are slit, (PETA call for a boycott)... to ensure that animals killed for its stores are not grossly abused.
5.Their video-Chew on This-...Not only does vegetarianism spare billions of animals from horrific suffering, it also spares your waistline.

Too bad PETA doesn't give a rat's behind about the suffering of unborn babies, they appear to be pretty effective.

PETA's purpose isn't to advocate for unborn children. It exists to advocate for animals. There are plenty of anti-abortion orgs out there. Why should it be PETA's job?

JAM I adore you but...

Honestly, I'm not a member of PETA but I don't give a rat's behind about the suffering of "unborn babies" either. Maybe that sounds cruel and heartless but that's fine with me. I care about the women who don't want to have a child -- they shouldn't be forced to do it against their will, period. What about their suffering? If this is about suffering, I can't think of many things that would be worse than being forced to carry a parasite around for nine months of misery -- and yes, that's exactly what a fetus is to a woman who doesn't want it.

You know, I'm morally opposed to eating meat, so I don't do it. Mr. valkyrie doesn't do it either and I don't think I could ever be in a relationship with someone who did. Maybe for fun I'll start going to restaurants and holding up pictures of bloody cows when other people are eating meat. Maybe I'll get my friends together to block Outback Steakhouse and taunt the people going there. Or wait, maybe I'll realize that my view is my view and I'll leave other people alone and let them live their own lives and make their own decisions -- even though I find their behavior morally reprehensible. That's a novel idea, isn't it?

Valkyrie-Or wait, maybe I'll realize that my view is my view and I'll leave other people alone and let them live their own lives and make their own decisions -- even though I find their behavior morally reprehensible. That's a novel idea, isn't it?

Best point made on the thread.

We all have our passions. Can you tell this is one of mine?:)

Actually, you triggered a flashback to the 60's and remind me of a song from "Hair".

MY CONVICTION
You know, kids; I wish every mom and dad would make a speech to their teenagers and say "Kids, be free, be whatever you are, do whatever you want to do, just so long as you don't hurt anybody. And remember kids, I am your friend."

I used to live and die by some of the philosophy this musical imparted. If nothing more-maybe by this discussion, lurkers and interested parties will really think about behavior and consequences-choices and ramifications. So, by playing our parts
I figure we ALL did good!

Good point! :)