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

[zaimoni.livejournal.com]

it's really, how do you react when what you know is right in two separate cases seems to conflict?

Been there, done that: first reaction is that I'm transparently lying to myself, so stop the lie of knowing what is right.

The hypothetical doesn't have enough detail to go further than that.

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

It's a pure hypothetical so there isn't really any more detail to give.

I think your reaction is common, and becoming uncertain is definately a more reasonable reaction than choosing one or the other out of hand because it logically follows.

Usually, I end up discovering that there wasn't *really* an inconsistency in the first place, but in the process I learn more about my own values and stuff.