Is it contradictory to be pro-choice, pro-death with dignity, but against

[lcdnumber6]

the death penalty?

I'm reading "Don't think of an elephant" right now and Lakoff asks how a person's different values "hang" together. I've never been able to reconcile my positions on abortion, DNR/euthanasia and the death penalty.
On the surface, here is why I believe in each:

1. Pro-choice (to a certain point) because I do not think humans are "people" if they cannot live outside the womb. And personal rights of a woman. When a child becomes viable, that's a different story.
2. Pro-death with dignity because I don't believe in sustaining life artificially and if someone is in chronic pain/incapacity and wants to die they should be allowed to go. Again, personal rights.
3. Anti death-penalty because I don't think it is a deterrent against crime, it's way too costly and not 100% error-proof, and, well, I think it lets the guilty off the hook too easily.

So, what am I missing? Does anyone know how to verbalize the progressive meta-value that glues these ideas together? Or is there none? I'm not really religious, but Buddhism is the philosophy/religion that resonates most with how I want to live my life.

Any feedback from y'all would be swell. I just woke up thinking about it, and thought I'd post before I go off to do my Saturday stuff.

[annabanana]

1. I think it's a matter of definitions..

A precognitive bundle of cells, and a post-cognitive collection of involuntary responses don't necessarily infer the presence of a "person". A man on death row is undeniably there.

[Lefta Dissenter]

3. hey anna,

nice way to put it! I was just having this discussion with someone at work this week - and wish I had had your words to put in my own mouth! :hi:

[lcdnumber6]

7. absolutely, but....

an innocent person who wants to die is already *there* as well. i guess, thinking about it more, for the first two positions I'm all for quality of life, and that seems to be consistent. but how does being against killing the worst of society fit in????

[etherealtruth]

2. Allowing people to die a comfortable, peaceful , death...

... with dignity does not contradict any of the beliefs you put forward. Dying is a part of living. Allowing someone (or their advocate on their behalf) to decide which medical interventions they will accept is a pro-life stance (in my sometimes less than profound opinion).

[Stop_the_War]

4. I am pro-choice, pro-dying with dignity, and anti-death penalty n/t

[eallen]

5. There's no reason for these three issues to be aggregated.

Unless you have a meta-value that aggregates them. But just because your opponents do, doesn't mean you necessarily do.

With regard to abortion, I don't view viability as relevant as the fact that the fetus isn't conscious. Birth is not simply a move in location, but is a signficant biological event. As one part of that, the new baby's first breath supplies more oxygen to the brain than the fetus had through the umbilical chord.

[annabanana]

13. hence the words "spirit" and "aspirate" being related....

Traditionally, the spirit was supposed to enter the body with the first breath.

[wtbymark]

6. not contradictory at all

you are pro-individual rights

1&2) The individuals right over the sovereignty of their body, weather they choose to end a pregnancy or end their own life with dignity.
3) The individuals right to retain their life even if incarcerated indefinitely

[malaise]

8. Until I see these same

people challenging the legality of the Iraq invasion and the right to life for thousands of Iraqis and innocent US soldiers, this farce in Florida will have no meaning for me.

[lcdnumber6]

9. i wasn't really thinking of schiavo, but amen to that.

the out-and-out hyprocricy of the politicians and neo-con's in this country is very worthy of its own thread.

[Malva Zebrina]

10. What is contradictory is the use of language when people who are

without a doubt, pro-choice, but claim to be "pro-life"

Sure it is possible to qualify that, but the explanations do not include WHY, exactly, they do choose the rhetoric of the right wing religious fanatics instead of the more clear rhetoric of liberals ie; Pro-choice. I have a theory as to why this is done.

These people, imo, are either trolls spouting the right winged religious fanaticism that we see is so evident in the protesters in front of the hospice in Pinella, or they have bought into the rhetoric of the right winged, violent and fanatic religious because that is what they are being taught every Sunday, and on various web sites.

To be associated with the liberals, who recognize the rights of women re birth control and abortion, is to be connected to "pro-choice and NOT pro-life, and that is anathema to those who continue to use right winger language , but insist they are for a woman's right to choose.

[ktowntennesseedem]

11. Welcome, lcdnumber6! Quick answer: not contradictory.

The way you detail your positions is pretty much in line with how I feel, and I don't think there is any contratiction. I especially agree with you on your arguments against the death penalty, and I could add several other reasons.

To sum up my position, you might say I favor the death penalty, I just don't favor the way we carry it out. If someone is convicted of a crime warrenting such punishment, let the "death penalty" be carried out by locking them up for life. Far cheaper to house and feed them for 50 or 60 years than to pay for all the mandatory appeals while they wait on death row. And like you, I think killing them lets them off the hook too easily. For those who truly deserve a "death penalty," a quick easy death is too good for them.

[Bunny]

12. It's all about self-determination.

My right to control my body, whether through reproductive choices, or end-of-life choices. Pro-choice, pro-death with dignity.

A death row inmate doesn't have the same control over his/her body. But the bigger issue with death penalty is the risk of executing an innocent person.