They are nether perfect nor accurate equivalences.
Capital punishment is the pre-established consequence of taking another's life. The human being killed knows this consequence exists, and they know it before they commit the act precipitating their punishment. The human fetus does not now of the law, has not broken any law, and has not taken another's life. The murderer is guilty, and the fetus is innocent. Furthermore, the murderer is presumed innocent until proven guilty, able to make defense for themselves to prove their innocent (and thereby spare their life), and the crime(s) must meet specific criteria including but not limited to intent, premeditation, and willful disregard for the victim's life. I have endeavored to stay away from such comparisons in my posts because of the rhetoric associated with calling mothers and doctors murderers, but that is the logical consequence of such comparisons.
Comparing abortion to capital punishment is woefully flawed; it is NOT a "perfectly accurate" comparison.
Assuming you mean noncombatants with the comparison to war, it is universally recognized war is a violation of the right to life. This violation of the right to life is one of the chief reasons wars should be avoided, not supported. For the combatants, they've all made a prior decision to put at risk their own life; if they are soldiers then they have done so contractually. They are also supplied with the means to defend themselves. None of this applies to the human fetus but the right to live. Therefore, comparisons with war are arguments against abortion, not for it.
Comparing abortion to capital punishment is woefully flawed; it is NOT a "perfectly accurate" comparison.
Self-defense? The fetal human is not provided an opportunity to defend itself. The prolife position is very much about defending those who cannot defend themselves. The abortionist and the woman seeking the abortion are are the instigators in a situation in which the fetus' life is put fatally at risk and without option for defense.
Comparing abortion to self-defense is woefully flawed; it is NOT a "perfectly accurate" comparison.
In the case of assisted suicide it is the human taking his/her own life making the decision and proactively acting on their own (situational) behalf to take their own behalf. No one asks the fetus if it wants to be killed (they instead make comparisons like you have to justify the killing), and the fetus is not initiating, proactively following through and collaborating with their own demise.
Comparing abortion to self-defense is woefully flawed; it is NOT a "perfectly accurate" comparison.
None of the examples asserted are equivalent. Most of them (war being the sole possible exception) are also arguments of extremes, and not normative behavior. About 45k are killed in the US are murdered in the US each year. They yearly average for abortion is about 1 million per year (it is currently down to about 600k). Suicide kills about the same amount (45k); another 2,000 can be added to that number for assisted suicides. In the last 45 years the annual average of those killed via capital punishment is about 30. In other words, all of the examples provided (again, with the possible exception of war) prove not only to be false equivalences but also argument from extremes. Furthermore, ALL of these behaviors, including war, are legally and sociologically considered deviance. Arguments from extremes are always and everywhere fallacious.
So not only is it appropriate to ask if this comparison is intended to say abortion is killing, but it is also appropriate, given the evidence of the case you've asserted, to ask if you are intentionally making an argument ad absurdum. We might also ask if you mean to say a pregnant woman and the fetal human child are at war, or that the fetal human is having war waged against it by the abortionist, the abortion industry (a $5 billion industry in the US), and/or the federal or state governments.
In other words, there are quite a lot of problems asserting those statistical, legal (and in some cases moral), normatively deviant behaviors as equivalences. As I noted with another poster: these are not rationales for abortion; they are rationalizations for abortion.
The fetal human has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The pregnant woman also has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The fundamental argument in the abortion debate is about whether the right to life is subordinate or superior to the right to pursue happiness. Because there cannot be any pursuit of happiness, or pursuit of a "quality of life" absent the existence of life, the right to life is necessarily preeminent to quality of life. Arguments from extremes (whether they be statistical, legal, or moral extremes) are logically fallacious and therefore not a reasonable rational basis for sound legal/social policy.
Just think about it.
