Charles Manson Vs Babies

When considering Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice and Pro/Anti Death Penalty viewpoints, there are 4 possible positions. Three of these positions make logical (if not always morally defensible) sense, one makes no sense.

Position 1 - Pro-Choice AND Pro-Death Penalty. This position at least on a logical basis is morally consistent, although not completely morally defensible. It assumes that some lives are not worthy of continuing (mass murderers, un-born babies) and draws up at least consistent rules to distinguish between who we can kill and who we cannot.

Position 2 - Pro-Life and Anti-Death Penalty. This position is completely logical and very morally defensible. It assumes that all life is sacred (mass murders AND innocent babies) and should be protected. You can argue over whether Mass Murders should be killed, but, if they apply the same rules to babies, it is impossible to win this argument on a moral basis.

Position 3 - Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty. This position is logical as well, although can be argued against on making value judgements on what life is sacred (babies) and what life is not (mass murderers). The argument for this position is the guilt or innocence of the person determines whether they have forfeited their right to life. A person who kills another, for example, should lose his life versus an innocent baby should be protected.

Position 4 - Pro-Choice and Anti-Death Penalty. This position is completely illogical and completely morally indefensible. In this position, you admit that some life has value (murderers) but the state has the right to allow some life to be extinguished (babies). In this position the convenience of the the mother is a reason TO kill an innocent baby but a person who has killed others should NOT lose their life. I don't know how you can argue that point.

Guess which position is the default position for the Democratic Party.