An Open Letter to Political Pundits: Convicts != Fetuses != Animals

[rowyn]

What is with this whole soundbite rhetorical argument that, somehow, one's position on the death penalty needs to be aligned with one's position on abortion and/or hunting? Is it so hard to imagine that one could believe that convicted criminals, fetuses, and wild animals are not, in fact, identical creatures and should not, therefore, be treated as though they were? I am so sick of hearing "how can she be pro-life and yet favor the death penalty?" or "how can he allow the murder of unborn children and yet oppose the execution of hardened killers?" Neither one of these positions is ethically inconsistent. They just require a marginally nuanced version of the world that does not do things like, oh, group frogs and plants in the same family because they're both green. No one over the age of ten is going to change their position on any of these things based on this line of argument. Please, stop. Thank you.

Comments

[mmsword.livejournal.com]

Well, the core of this comes from the idea known as the Consistent Life Ethic or the Consistent Ethic if Life, which holds that all life is valuable and shouldn't be terminated prematurely, regardless of circumstance. In the eyes of some one who follows this ideology, killing a convict and having an abortion is the same thing, because in the end, you are still killing a person in their world view, and this is never correct. Needless to say, most people that follow this ideology are also pacifists of some flavor or another. And have a hard time finding political support for all three. Just off the top of my head from philosophy class.

[rowyn]

I hear this argument from people on both sides, though. Ie, people who support the death penalty expressing disgust at pro-choice people for opposing the death penalty. It's not just the "all life is sacred" crowd that uses it.