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

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

The "logical inconsistency" argument is disingenuous, and when it is made, I am not persuaded that the arguer is seriously approaching the topic. Rather, I interpret it as a visceral reaction, grabbing and tossing a "clever" argument one has heard before, rather than personally engaging in an attempt to understand the other party's reasons for coming to a wrong conclusion, and attempting to persuade that person of the rightness of your own position.

If such positions are "inconsistent," one might wonder why so many hold to one combination or the other: either "Pro-Death-Penalty / Anti-Abortion" or "Anti-Death-Penalty / Pro-Choice-to-Have-an-Abortion."

For the latter combination, I can see an ethical consistency. That would be, "It is wrong to kill a sapient life that is capable of living without support of the womb." The particulars may split a few different directions: Maybe it's the visceral opposition to approving death of someone who can plead for his own life. Maybe it's that you can see someone on death row as a human being, whereas a fetus is just a bulge in a belly. Or, it can be based on the idea that, yes, a fetus is a life form, but the mother's right to self-determination trumps the right of a not-fully-developed life to be born. (This latter viewpoint can be easier to accept, I am sure, if you think of a fetus as something sub-human, and concepts of "souls" don't enter into the equation.) And, even some persons who may be "pro-choice" and "anti-death-penalty" may still split on the issue of, say, assisted suicide, or "pulling the plug" on someone on life support under certain conditions.

Now, someone could say, "But babies are innocent!" or "But a child-rapist-and-murderer DESERVES to die!" or "God says you can't do that!" but that doesn't render this "internally inconsistent." It just can be made to seem such by breezing over the finer details and failing to recognize the values that led someone to this particular conclusion.

For the "Death Penalty but No Abortion" combo, I can also see an ethical consistency. From a judicial standpoint, execution is reserved for criminals. Someone who is a murderer has forfeited his right to live in a lawful society, and therefore it is within the rights of the state to sentence that person to death - either as the ultimate punishment, or simply to remove from society someone who has crossed and uncrossable line, without burdening the state with having to sustain this individual for the rest of a long, incarcerated life. On the other hand, an unborn child is innocent, so if you see that individual as human, abortion would be (in this viewpoint) equated with execution - and an unwarranted one at that.

Someone could say, "All execution is wrong!" or "That's not really a baby!" or "Criminals are just products of a flawed society!" but it still doesn't render this viewpoint internally inconsistent.

I can't really say much to argue my particular viewpoint on the matter of abortion, without first understanding where someone else is coming from. Certain points that I might consider "crucial" underpinnings to my own viewpoint might be irrelevant to how the other person came to his or her stance. (I could, of course, give it a good shot in the dark and try to address some of those starting points, if I felt that I could contribute anything to the discussion that hasn't already been said countless times before.)

If I come at this with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with me is: a) evil, b) stupid, and/or c) intellectually dishonest ... well, then, even if those things were TRUE, I think I'd have a hard time having a serious discussion on the topic anyway, right? It makes me wonder why anyone would bother - that is, if they really want to change anyone's opinion on the matter, after all.