Pro-Death?

[Voskhod]

What does it say about a person, politically, personally, and morally if they are simultaneously:
Pro-choice / Pro-abortion
Pro-euthanasia
Pro-death penalty
And Pro-sterilization/contraception?

Basically meaning, he/she is entirely for anything that increases the amount of people who die every day, and decreases the amount of people who are born every day?

[Hydra009]

Umm...doesn't sterilization/contraception ultimately reduce the number of deaths by reducing number of births?

[Atheon]

Umm...doesn't sterilization/contraception ultimately reduce the number of deaths by reducing number of births?

Exactly my thinking... and I'd add abortion to that list.

I myself am all in favor of reducing the number of people being born (overpopulated planet). But I'm 100% opposed to the death penalty. I'm fine with euthanasia (as long as it's what the person being euthanized wants).

[Colanth]

What does it say about a person, politically, personally, and morally if they are simultaneously:
Pro-choice / Pro-abortion

For individual freedom.

Pro-euthanasia

For individual freedom.

Pro-death penalty

Against murder.

And Pro-sterilization/contraception?

For individual freedom.

So I'd say that the person was pretty consistent.  BTW, outside of China, very few people are pro-abortion.  (That means in favor of forcing women to have abortions.  It's not the same as pro-choice, which is in favor of allowing women to choose - to carry to term OR to have an abortion.)

[Hydra009]

Exactly my thinking... and I'd add abortion to that list.

I was going to, but the equivocation between pro-choice and pro-abortion makes me suspect that the OP might be in a pro-lifer.   :-|

I myself am all in favor of reducing the number of people being born (overpopulated planet). But I'm 100% opposed to the death penalty.

Same here.  And considering that these positions are all over the political map (Democrats tend to oppose the death penalty, but Republicans tend to oppose euthanasia, contraception, and abortion, so a combination of both camps isn't likely to be particularly mainstream), there might not be a whole lot of people who simultaneously hold all the positions the OP listed off.  Especially since they rely on very different values.

For example, one's stance euthanasia is heavily influenced by notions of self-determination and hedonism (minimizing pain) vs moralistic concern, the idea that there's some sort of divine plan and the sacredness of life.

Abortion pits reproductive rights (most especially, bodily integrity) against moralistic concern and the sacredness of life (anyone sense a pattern here?)

The death penalty pits pre-modern notions of retribution (eye-for-an-eye punishment) vs enlightenment notions of justice (death penalty opponents tend to see the death penalty as cruel and inhumane)

And finally, the contraception "debate" such as it is, almost entirely revolves around ideas of reproductive rights versus religion (every sperm is sacred).

One of these things is not like the others...

[Plu]

Pretty much agree with Colanth except I'm not really sure why being pro-death penalty is being against murder, the two seem pretty unrelated.

[Colanth]

Exactly, Shoe.  An executed murderer can't repeat his crime.  (I'm anti-death-penalty, unless there's absolutely no possibility that the accused may not be guilty of premeditated murder.  Some cases are that clear.)

[Bibliofagus]

First of all: I don't understand how you got this:

he/she is entirely for anything that increases the amount of people who die every day, and decreases the amount of people who are born every day?

Out of this:

a person whom is simultaneously:
Pro-choice / Pro-abortion
Pro-euthanasia
Pro-death penalty
And Pro-sterilization/contraception?

I'll grant you most of these would probably decrease the amount of people born each day, but to equate that to 'pro death' is absurd.

As for the increase in actual deaths...

[Solitary]

I agree with Colanth as long as pro-sterilization is a personal choice and not forced upon them. However, when it is necessary to prevent more children from starvation or deprived of a healthy life, I support it. Solitary

[billhilly]

Exactly, Shoe.  An executed murderer can't repeat his crime.  (I'm anti-death-penalty, unless there's absolutely no possibility that the accused may not be guilty of premeditated murder.  Some cases are that clear.)

All people who've been sentenced to death supposedly met these criteria according to the states that sentenced them.  The reality turned out to be different of course with new methods of testing resulting in exonerations.  Yes, there are indeed cases where there absolutely seems to be no doubt as to guilt but the people in charge of making those decisions (prosecutors mainly) have no incentive to err on the side of caution and are protected by immunity.

Why do we need to kill murderers badly enough that we will inevitably commit murder ourselves in the process?

[Solitary]

Exactly! And how many murderers are set free to do it again because the jury doesn't feel right killing them because they like their personality or for religious reasons. And why would anyone that has murdered be let out to do it again when the law is to protect society not punish. And why are our prisons so full of so-called criminal that are no threat to anyone but themselves. And finally, logically, two wrongs don't make a right. Solitary

[Colanth]

Exactly, Shoe.  An executed murderer can't repeat his crime.  (I'm anti-death-penalty, unless there's absolutely no possibility that the accused may not be guilty of premeditated murder.  Some cases are that clear.)

All people who've been sentenced to death supposedly met these criteria according to the states that sentenced them.

The current standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is a FAR looser one.  And that's usually reasonable doubt as determined by a jury, which is a far cry from impartial in most cases.

[billhilly]

Exactly, Shoe.  An executed murderer can't repeat his crime.  (I'm anti-death-penalty, unless there's absolutely no possibility that the accused may not be guilty of premeditated murder.  Some cases are that clear.)

All people who've been sentenced to death supposedly met these criteria according to the states that sentenced them.

The current standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is a FAR looser one.  And that's usually reasonable doubt as determined by a jury, which is a far cry from impartial in most cases.

So you're against the death penalty then?  Good for you.

[Colanth]

So you're against the death penalty then?

In all but a VERY few cases.  (Most of which are moot, since the intended victim already imposed the death penalty on the attacker.)

[AtheTurk]

we should actually talk about post-death. that is what they religious do. but unfortunately it's untalkable. nobody has gone there have not yet turn back : )