Capital Punishment vs. Abortion
My more liberal-minded friends have argued that having a pro-life, pro-capital punishment position is inconsistent. (Of course, they don’t have a problem with their own "inconsistent" pro-choice, anti-capital punishment position.)
The difference between a pro-life position and a pro-capital punishment position stems from the underlying theory of capital punishment. Avoiding the legal theories justifying or condemning capital punishment from a retributive or deterrence positions, capital punishment is pronounced in cases where the individual has such a negative impact on society as to, for that person, have no social value. In other words, the person has a net negative impact on society. Capital punishment (and life in prison for that matter) is society’s way of saying that society is better off without that person.
Using the social value theory, therefore, an anti-abortion, pro-capital punishment positions are consistent. In the former case, society protects lives that have potential value to society and that haven’t been given an opportunity to choose to add societal value, and in the latter case extinguish a life of somebody who has been given the opportunity to add value, but chose to contribute a net negative effect on society.
Will some babies eventually turn into the psychopaths we condemn to capital punishment? Sure. But the net positive effect of protecting the babies and allowing them to be net positive contributors to society in aggregate outweighs the negative of the small percentage who will be a drain on society. Conversely, with capital punishment the net positive effect is observed by eradicating individuals who are a drain to the greater social good. Can some of these individuals be redeemed and add to the social good? Sure, but the system for assigning capital punishment attempts to weed out those persons with lesser sentences and reserves death for for unrepentant individuals or those of particularly heinous crimes.
Compare this to the position of my more liberal minded friends. They argue to protect individuals who have chosen to be a net drain on society, but kill the individuals whose potential would serve society with a net gain. And they think my position is inconsistent?