Discussion WYR have a hypocritical but staunch pro-choicer or a consistent non-hypocritical pro-lifer?

[TAW122]

This was something that crossed my mind at times when I was writing articles and thinking about ideas for topic discussion. Personally, I would rather have a staunch pro-choicer, albeit said pro-choicer being a bit hypocritical on certain things, rather than a consistent non-hypocritical pro-lifer. I just cannot ever get behind the pro-lifers' logic and their practices as they are antithetical towards our values and rights. Sure, while I do despise having hypocrisy and prefer there to be just logical consistency throughout it all, it is still better to have any kind of supporters towards our cause and anyone who will help us get closer to having a right to die for all people.

Most of the consistent pro-lifers are generally religious fundamentalists, and without getting into too much complexity and such, I will say that their core values tend to be consistent with their belief system (even if it is contrary to actual logic). For example, a simple instance of this would be where a religious fundamentalist is against abortion and also against the right to die (Note: Keep in mind I don't support pro-lifers in any way and also I'm pro-choice both when it comes to the right to die and abortion!). I would personally applaud their consistency (in logic), though I would still staunchly disagree with their stance as it is antithetical and in opposition towards my values as well as the pro-choice community's values.

Example 1 (A pro-lifer who is against the death penalty, but also right to die):
Years ago, I learned that someone who is likely religious (not fully confirmed) and she and I had a small conversation about philosophical views and life. She was against the death penalty (she had more liberal-leaning views) and believed that life is just inherently valuable (which of course, I don't share nor agree with even on a fundamental level because life is an imposition that all sentient beings are imposed upon). She also did not agree with the right to die since it was "playing God" and that no one should have that much power to dictate who lives or dies. Obviously, I never really fully mentioned my fundamental views (for obvious reasons), but this is just an example of someone who is consistent in their views, yet I don't agree with them. I do, however, applaud their consistency though.

Example 2 (A pro-choicer who is against the death penalty, but pro-choice when it comes to right to die):
In this example, here is someone who I had a discussion with (isn't religious but is a humanist and life lover in general) a few years ago. He is for the right to die in general, but opposes the death penalty (most likely had personal reasons and/or specific leaning political values). I could tolerate his hypocrisy when it comes to 'death' in general, even if it is illogical when he does support the right to die even if he doesn't seem to support the death penalty. Maybe he thinks that the death penalty is a mercy to alleviate the heinous criminals and convicts that don't deserve to just avoid punishment (I don't know and is unconfirmed), but either way, I'm ok with looking the other way when it comes to logical inconsistency. This is because any support towards legalizing the right to die and/or having people who support our values is always a bonus, even if there are minor (insignificant) differences that are trivial at best.

So overall, with all that said, I personally would rather support a slightly hypocritical pro-choicer over a (logically) consistent pro-lifer as pro-choicers are considered our allies and given how we are all fragmented in a sense, any semblance of unity towards a common cause is always a plus. Pro-lifers and the mainstream majority often have institutions, mass support (the masses and the public at large) backing them up, yet we are generally alone, so it's essential that we have as much unity as possible while looking past very minor differences that have little impact towards our overall cause.

Would you support a pro-choicer who is hypocritical over a consistent pro-lifer? Keep in mind this thread is not about me, but just pro-choicers and pro-lifers in general.

 

[Spike Spiegel]

I dislike terms like pro life and pro choice, both because of their connotations to other topics as well at their generality. As you have pointed out it is easy to have conflicting borderline hypercritical opinions. When we apply such labels we box these people into a set group of notions or beliefs, it makes it a binary topic. Either Pro choice or pro life as you have mentioned. It is possible to be legally opposed to something but morally support it or vise versa. I think you will find many people tend to see a line blur with topics like assisted suicide, families rights to remove life preserving care, death penalty, even suicide pods.

To get back to your main question. I would rather have a conversation with someone who is logically consistent regardless of their views. However in reality we will see much more people fall into the "hypocritical" category because that just seems to be more realistic. In personal experience I have found very few people who truly are steadfast in the logical continuum of their beliefs or alignment.

Further the issue gets more complicated when you factor in belief systems and to what degree people worship. ( Personally I think it is stupid to chastise somebody for not following their religion to a T). When it comes to political parties, religions, movements, I think it is actually healthy to have some divergence, specially if you find yourself in a echo chamber.

This was a very interesting post and explores the dichotomy of thought most people have in their day to day lives and opinions.

 

[dreamingofrest]

This was something that crossed my mind at times when I was writing articles and thinking about ideas for topic discussion. Personally, I would rather have a staunch pro-choicer, albeit said pro-choicer being a bit hypocritical on certain things, rather than a consistent non-hypocritical pro-lifer. I just cannot ever get behind the pro-lifers' logic and their practices as they are antithetical towards our values and rights. Sure, while I do despise having hypocrisy and prefer there to be just logical consistency throughout it all, it is still better to have any kind of supporters towards our cause and anyone who will help us get closer to having a right to die for all people.

Most of the consistent pro-lifers are generally religious fundamentalists, and without getting into too much complexity and such, I will say that their core values tend to be consistent with their belief system (even if it is contrary to actual logic). For example, a simple instance of this would be where a religious fundamentalist is against abortion and also against the right to die (Note: Keep in mind I don't support pro-lifers in any way and also I'm pro-choice both when it comes to the right to die and abortion!). I would personally applaud their consistency (in logic), though I would still staunchly disagree with their stance as it is antithetical and in opposition towards my values as well as the pro-choice community's values.

Example 1 (A pro-lifer who is against the death penalty, but also right to die):
Years ago, I learned that someone who is likely religious (not fully confirmed) and she and I had a small conversation about philosophical views and life. She was against the death penalty (she had more liberal-leaning views) and believed that life is just inherently valuable (which of course, I don't share nor agree with even on a fundamental level because life is an imposition that all sentient beings are imposed upon). She also did not agree with the right to die since it was "playing God" and that no one should have that much power to dictate who lives or dies. Obviously, I never really fully mentioned my fundamental views (for obvious reasons), but this is just an example of someone who is consistent in their views, yet I don't agree with them. I do, however, applaud their consistency though.

Example 2 (A pro-choicer who is against the death penalty, but pro-choice when it comes to right to die):
In this example, here is someone who I had a discussion with (isn't religious but is a humanist and life lover in general) a few years ago. He is for the right to die in general, but opposes the death penalty (most likely had personal reasons and/or specific leaning political values). I could tolerate his hypocrisy when it comes to 'death' in general, even if it is illogical when he does support the right to die even if he doesn't seem to support the death penalty. Maybe he thinks that the death penalty is a mercy to alleviate the heinous criminals and convicts that don't deserve to just avoid punishment (I don't know and is unconfirmed), but either way, I'm ok with looking the other way when it comes to logical inconsistency. This is because any support towards legalizing the right to die and/or having people who support our values is always a bonus, even if there are minor (insignificant) differences that are trivial at best.

So overall, with all that said, I personally would rather support a slightly hypocritical pro-choicer over a (logically) consistent pro-lifer as pro-choicers are considered our allies and given how we are all fragmented in a sense, any semblance of unity towards a common cause is always a plus. Pro-lifers and the mainstream majority often have institutions, mass support (the masses and the public at large) backing them up, yet we are generally alone, so it's essential that we have as much unity as possible while looking past very minor differences that have little impact towards our overall cause.

Would you support a pro-choicer who is hypocritical over a consistent pro-lifer? Keep in mind this thread is not about me, but just pro-choicers and pro-lifers in general.

I'm not sure how hypocritical it is for someone who is pro-choice to be against the death penalty. The person dying by death penalty (most of the time, at least) is not choosing to die. Maybe the death penalty should be an option prisoners can consent to if they want, but I personally don't agree with forcing it on people who would rather serve out their life in prison.

I do think it's all complicated though, and no two people are ever going to be able completely agree to everything. Like you've said, it's the most important to connect either the people that we share the most with as far as beliefs on these issues and work together.

 

[TAW122]

I dislike terms like pro life and pro choice, both because of their connotations to other topics as well at their generality. As you have pointed out it is easy to have conflicting borderline hypercritical opinions. When we apply such labels we box these people into a set group of notions or beliefs, it makes it a binary topic. Either Pro choice or pro life as you have mentioned. It is possible to be legally opposed to something but morally support it or vise versa. I think you will find many people tend to see a line blur with topics like assisted suicide, families rights to remove life preserving care, death penalty, even suicide pods.

To get back to your main question. I would rather have a conversation with someone who is logically consistent regardless of their views. However in reality we will see much more people fall into the "hypocritical" category because that just seems to be more realistic. In personal experience I have found very few people who truly are steadfast in the logical continuum of their beliefs or alignment.

Further the issue gets more complicated when you factor in belief systems and to what degree people worship. ( Personally I think it is stupid to chastise somebody for not following their religion to a T). When it comes to political parties, religions, movements, I think it is actually healthy to have some divergence, specially if you find yourself in a echo chamber.

This was a very interesting post and explores the dichotomy of thought most people have in their day to day lives and opinions.

Interesting post and yes, in reality, humans have quite complex perspectives when it comes to specific opinions and there are certainly parts and areas where logic is not really consistent. I consider myself to be one of the few people who are truly steadfast in my logical continuum or at least I strive to be, partly because of how I'm wired I suppose. Thanks for the compliment and yes, the dichotomy is interesting and I suppose I became more aware of dichotomies after I entered uni (more than a decade ago) and studied philosophy, critical thinking courses.

I'm not sure how hypocritical it is for someone who is pro-choice to be against the death penalty. The person dying by death penalty (most of the time, at least) is not choosing to die. Maybe the death penalty should be an option prisoners can consent to if they want, but I personally don't agree with forcing it on people who would rather serve out their life in prison.

I do think it's all complicated though, and no two people are ever going to be able completely agree to everything. Like you've said, it's the most important to connect either the people that we share the most with as far as beliefs on these issues and work together.

That's an interesting point about how there are people who would rather serve out their life sentence while in prison. I also agree that there should be an option that prisoners can consent to having their suffering end on their own terms (without cruel and unusual punishment (8th amendment) done to them), but there has to a system in place where people cannot just commit heinous acts towards other fellow human beings and then get the sweet release of death. I think that the prisoner would have some responsibility to make things right and to at least endure punishment for their crimes against their victims, then after having had adequate punishment, then they may get a choice to exit on their own terms.

With the last part, yes, I believe that I strive to find people who are more closely aligned with my values and/or at least will be amiable to get along with.