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.

They literally call themselves pro-life and then express support for the death penalty.

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.

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.

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.

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.

18. Momma’s threat “I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it” hits harder.

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

So was the guy they executed the other day right? So innocence might not be it either

This. People are not that complicated

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

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.

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

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?

That wasn't so hard, was it? People tripping over themselves to find a gotcha and forgetting to use a little common sense.

Former Christian here.

This is it. Criminals have (theoretically) been proven guilty. Some crimes are worthy of death.

A fetus (ahem unborn baby) has cast no sin and does not deserve death.

Christians would also say that they would never get out to death because they would never do anything wrong but when you bring up the fact that Jesus himself said you should be willing to suffer even to the point of suffering on a cross, they start changing the subject.

Ain't Taliban follows the same method of eradicating women empowerment!

Roman Catholic doctrine opposes both, but the bishops don't go around threatening to withhold religious services for politicians who allow the death penalty like they do with pro-choice politicians....