Boston Mayor does not support death penalty, but supports it for Boston bomber

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I guess it's like the people who say that abortion is murder until their daughter gets pregnant from a rape.

It's exactly like that.

That is why I am pro-life except in cases of rape and if the health of the mother is threatened.

What is your reason for being pro-life than?  The rape exception that most pro-lifers apply really is logically inconsistent.

As for the death penalty, you should either support it or oppose it.  There should never be a one-person or one-case exception to apply a sentence that normally isn't given.  Offense variables are one thing, but a whole different sentence leads to issues.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I guess it's like the people who say that abortion is murder until their daughter gets pregnant from a rape.

It's exactly like that.

That is why I am pro-life except in cases of rape and if the health of the mother is threatened.

What is your reason for being pro-life than?  The rape exception that most pro-lifers apply really is logically inconsistent.

As for the death penalty, you should either support it or oppose it.  There should never be a one-person or one-case exception to apply a sentence that normally isn't given.  Offense variables are one thing, but a whole different sentence leads to issues.

I believe that abortion is murder and wrong, but with the rape exception I don't think I have the right to tell a women after she got raped that she has to keep the baby.

If abortion is murder, how is a murder justified by avoidance of mental anguish (albeit potentially severe)?  If necessity to preserve one's own life is not a justification for murder (which you may disagree with, but the law does not), how is avoidance of severe mental anguish a justification?  Surely avoidance of death ranks higher than personal suffering?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I guess it's like the people who say that abortion is murder until their daughter gets pregnant from a rape.

It's exactly like that.

That is why I am pro-life except in cases of rape and if the health of the mother is threatened.

What is your reason for being pro-life than?  The rape exception that most pro-lifers apply really is logically inconsistent.

It's not logically inconsistent Inks.  There is a logically coherent defense of that position, even if you disagree with it.  We debated that last year in this thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=167705.msg3594597#msg3594597

Sure, if you believe that removal of mental anguish is a justification of murder.  But that could lead to some pretty bad vigilante justice / revenge justifications if you're going to adopt that logic train.  The unwilling participant rationale still exists, of course, but I don't see how that counters the fact that necessity does not justify murder, since the basis of that wasn't someone who willingly decided to participate in the events that led them to "need" to murder someone.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Sure, if you believe that removal of mental anguish is a justification of murder.  But that could lead to some pretty bad vigilante justice / revenge justifications if you're going to adopt that logic train.  The unwilling participant rationale still exists, of course, but I don't see how that counters the fact that necessity does not justify murder, since the basis of that wasn't someone who willingly decided to participate in the events that led them to "need" to murder someone.

Inks, most pro-choice activists believe that even if the fetus was a person, the mother should still be allowed to abort, because of the fact that she should not be forced to have her body appropriated for the pregnancy, to keep the fetus alive, against her will.  This argument is made all the time in abortion debates.  You may think that's a terrible opinion to hold, but it's out there, and not logically inconsistent.

From there, it's really no big leap to take the somewhat milder "pro-life with exceptions" version of the argument, which is that if the woman willingly engaged in behavior (that is, had consensual sex) that led to the conception of the fetus, then she has an obligation not to kill it during the prenancy.  But if she was raped, then she never signed on for creating a new life, or keeping it alive for nine months, so she should then not be forced to use her body to keep it alive.

Again, you may think that those positions have troubling consequences.  But I don't see them as logically inconsistent.

It's only logically consistent if you either (1) disagree with the opinion that necessity does not justify murder, or (2) why there should be an exception to the rule for where the person's body has been appropriated to sustain the other. To believe the latter is fine, if you can reach that end through some logical justification; however, merely forming that exception, without any true reasoning, results in the exception merely being created as a convenient way to justify abortion without having the exception impact anything else. The whole rationale works backwards from the end goal, which while technically logically consistent at times (it depends who is making the argument), is totally arbitrary.