I was once asked why I am pro-life but not anti-capital punishment (I am in favor of capital punishment, but only if it is applied in a Biblical model). The pro-life / pro-capital punishment view is often ridiculed in the media and entertainment, and I have heard many Christians mock it as well.
The main reason I find the pro-life movement to be more important is shown in the pie chart above. Since the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision, there have been over one million abortions per year. I rounded down to a million and then calculated the weekly amount of 19,231 human beings killed per week. Then I graphed the average of 1 (one) death via capital punishment per week (actually, the average is about 0.65, but I rounded up). It took almost thirty years to mark the 1,000th execution since the Supreme Court ruled it was legal again.
So what you see is a rather odd pie chart. The capital punishment slice of the pie is almost invisible.
In a given week in the U.S., there are 19,231 deaths of completely innocent humans versus 1 death of a convicted murderer who survived an average of over 10 years of appeals, and whose guilt is virtually certain. (And this doesn’t even take into account the shattered lives of the women/boyfriends/husbands/parents who live with the pain of having the abortions or encouraging someone to have one). That is why my energy would still be directed to the pro-life movement even if I thought that capital punishment was un-Biblical.
Actually, I am OK with unrestricted access to abortions - provided that the unborn get the same 10+ years of appeals that condemned killers do.
Or, to paraphrase Randy, I’m pro-choice as long as the unborn human being is the one making the life or death decision.
More on capital punishment here.
Filed under: Favorites, Politics, Pro-life reasoning | Tagged: abortion, Politics, Pro-life, religion
I love the line about the appeals process.
May I borrow?
I’ve always thought it lame the argument that one who is pro-life has to be anti-captial punishment. First of all, the term “pro-life” is a decidedly anti-abortion term as opposed to a “I’m for life in every and any situation without exception” term. Secondly, as Dennis Prager puts it, capital punishment is society’s proof of the value it attaches to life. That is, should you take a life, as in murder, your life should be forfeit. It is justice for the crime of murder and a true balance of justice at that.
I checked out the link to a past post and then to another from there. I checked out some of the comments and Alan, when he used to visit here, brought up situations where a death row inmate was found to be innocent. He used this as proof that the system isn’t perfect enough to prevent innocent deaths by execution, but it seems to me that if they were found to be innocent, then that’s proof that the system is working.
However, that doesn’t mean innocents aren’t sometimes put to death. But that should inspire people to live a good, law-abiding life to lessen the chance they might one of those unfortunates.
In any case, pro-lifers aren’t in any way eager to put to death even one deserving of the sentence. It’s only that their primary concern is for the unborn, for whom the law provides no protection.
Marshall – good points!
Bridget – please “borrow” all you like – I borrowed it from someone, who probably borrowed it, etc.
I love the graphic. Excellent way to make the point.
great post., but it is a sad commentary on our society. we have a just God looking down, when is he going to tire of this? kinda scary
kw!
Psst…
It’s the pie chart above, not the pie chart below.
If capital punishment is society’s proof of the value it attaches to life, then we don’t value life very much at all, do we? Not to mention that the 1 execution a week costs the taxpayers more than those 19000 abortions did.
I don’t see how one can rationally be opposed to abortion but support the death penalty, or support abortion and oppose capital punishment, and I see nothing here to change my mind.
Like theobromophile, I like the line about the appeals process.
I’ve always said I could be pro-choice if the baby makes the choice.. That fits well with the 10 year appeals process
Neil,
I may be one of those who have butchered the response to this question. I’m glad I got a review.
Marshal makes a good point, one which I had missed for a long time, capital punishment is used against people who have killed/taken another human life.
Tim,
You seem to miss the point. How much do you cherish the life of the murdered if you let the murderer live out his days? Do you really think letting a guy cool his heels while his victim rots is somehow justice for the victim? Does that show that you value the life of that victim? Of course to execute an individual seems to suggest that life is not valued, but that is only true if one ignores the crime and the victim who suffered and died.
Plus, when for decades, if not centuries, murder has always been punished by death, it seems that to murder is to ask to be killed yourself.
There is another problem with your response, that being the costs involved. Of course there’s a cost to society we cannot determine for every child aborted, because there’s no way to determine the extent to which that child could have or would have benefitted society.
But why even bring up money in this equation? To put to death one who has been a burden on society is a worthy expenditure if it means that person can no longer be a burdern or a threat. The fact that it is so costly to go through the process is a result of distortions of the meaning of rights and other muddled thinking. Justice is supposed to be swift and trials speedy, but there have been hand wringers who have insisted that the convicted get more consideration than he gave his victim. I don’t want to debate the morality of such things, but only brought it up to explain the costs. In the end, I’m weary of having to even speak of costs in regard to doing the right thing. Money should be no object in doing the right thing.
Finally, if you can’t see the obvious distinction between being anti-abortion and pro-CP, it’s easy to explain. The child is innocent of wrongdoing and totally vulnerable. It’s life is totally dependant on the whims of another. It has no say in it’s destiny whatsoever. The murderer sentenced to death was none of these things. He was found guilty of not only wrongdoing, but the worst-”doing”. He is capable of taking care of himself and can determine his own destiny, free to do so as he chooses. He made a bad choice and logic and justice demand he take responsibility and is accountable.
Thus, it should be easy to see how many of us can be pro-life for the unborn and pro-life for the victims of murderers. Should be obvious to anyone.
I like the idea of fetal appeals. One can see a tween awaiting the outcome of his or her final appeal to the Supreme Court.
…and the way some kids can argue these days, they could be very interesting appeals from 10 year olds!
“I’ve always said I could be pro-choice if the baby makes the choice.”
Good one! Randy, I added that to the post.
“I don’t see how one can rationally be opposed to abortion but support the death penalty, or support abortion and oppose capital punishment, and I see nothing here to change my mind.”
Hi Tim,
I think it’s great that you value all human life. Personally, capital punishment is not an issue I feel extremely passionate about, I’m not really a passionate advocate, but I’m not an opponent either. I do tend to agree with Neil’s view that biblical capital punishment is acceptable (i.e. testimony of 2 witnesses or somethign to that effect) . That being said, I can understand the other people’s points of view here. There are two main differences between the act of abortion vs. the act of capital punishment.
1) The innocence of the abortion victim separates him/her from the guilt of the murderer. I don’t see the acts as equivalent simply because one is guilty and one did not do anything. Now, whether or not the murderer is guilty enough to deserve death is a worthy debate, but I’ve never seen eye-to-eye for CP opponents who see equivalence of killing the guilty and killing the innocent as a given.
2) The authority of the individual vs. the authority of the state. Many argue that the state has the authority to execute people. Romans 13 says that the government “does not bear the sword for nothing.”
Opponents of capital punishment have some effective arguments, but the rhetorical question “why do we kill people to show that killing people is wrong” is not one of them, mostly because of the reasons I mentioned. You might as well ask “why do we hold people against their will to show that holding people against their will is wrong.”
Excellent post. Very well thought out. It is amazing to me how surface level critics of this view are.
Do you realize that abortions were performed in peoples kitchens with coat hangers when it was illegal? That’ll be less painfull for mother and child.
Do you know that the reason the USA was founded as a country is so that it’s residents wouldn’t have to have other peoples religious beliefs shoved down their throats. Please stop.
Do you think the world really needs any more people that were brought up by children that have no business bringing babies into this world, not to mention no resources to bring them up properly? I don’t.
Are you going to welcome 19000 infants into your home every week and take great care of them? I’m sure all of them will be so dearly loved.
“Do you know that the reason the USA was founded as a country is so that it’s residents wouldn’t have to have other peoples religious beliefs shoved down their throats. Please stop.”
But scissors shoved down your skull is okay? The position of the pro-lifer is that a woman is forcing their beliefs on the unborn baby by ending its life. Aggression is harming another person. Telling person A they cannot harm person B is not aggression, at least not first strike. The whole idea of freedom is that my fist can only go as far as your face, or in this case, the doctor’s scalpel as far as baby’s skull.
Besides, I don’t need Jesus to tell me abortion is wrong, just like I don’t need him to tell me slavery is wrong, murder of born people, etc…
Do you think the world really needs any more people that were brought up by children that have no business bringing babies into this world, not to mention no resources to bring them up properly? I don’t.
Many families do not have the resources to take care of toddlers. Should we kill them too?
“Are you going to welcome 19000 infants into your home every week and take great care of them? I’m sure all of them will be so dearly loved.”
No. Does that mean I can’t oppose the murder of infants? What about 10 year olds? I don’t want to leave with 19,000 ten year olds, does that mean we can kill them? I don’t want to live with 19,000 old people, does that mean we can kill them? If only we had couples who were willing to take care of kids who were not their own…
“The position of the pro-lifer is that a woman is forcing their beliefs on the unborn baby by ending its life.” OK so what if the woman decides that she does not want to care for the unborn baby? Should she have the right to give the baby up for adoption before it’s born? How far will you go to control?
What about freedom? Sure you will respond “What about the unborn baby’s freedom?”.
It’s silly for me to have to say this but if you’re against abortion and all for freedom let’s just remove the baby, not kill it, and let the baby be free to do whatever it wants to do and let the woman go on her way.
We are mincing words and you don’t have a valid argument. You are trying to force other people into living their life the way you think they should. It’s none of your business.
Nathan,
From a strictly libertarian perspective, it is acceptable to ban abortion. “Freedom” means the ability to do things without government interference, but does not extend to the right to harm others. The libertarian philosophy – which is what you seem to be driving at – is founded upon the duty and right of non-aggression.
Abortion is a very clear aggression, from one being to another. The fact that the baby is dependent upon the mother is certainly not the problem of the child – the mother, specifically, and biology, generally – created that dependence. Even Ayn Rand stated that children have the right to support from their parents.
I do not have the freedom to harm you for nothing save my own pleasure or my own desires – such is a perversion of the very meaning of “freedom,” since it infringes upon yours. Yet, that is what over 90% of women who abort seek to do: destroy their child so that they do not have to continue with a pregnancy.
Last time I checked, freedom does not come untethered from responsibility. How can one have sexual intercourse – an act designed to make children – then slaughter the resulting child in the name of freedom?
“Even Ayn Rand stated that children have the right to support from their parents.”
If you can not conceptually differentiate between a potential human being and a human being, that is your own problem, and you can decide not to sanction an abortion. However, laws are (supposed to be) formed objectively, and we draw a clear distinction between what is and is not human.
Ayn Rand stated that children have rights, but an embryo is not a child. It is an embryo. If it were, it would be a person, existing inside another person – how is that even legally possible?
We are not talking about the right to kill a child, we are talking about the right to ‘kill’ (which isn’t even the right word – is removing an appendix ‘killing’ it?) a protoplasm, a thing that is not an independent life form – it is not even a life form, let alone a human one, but a potential life form.
Rory,
We would have to agree to disagree. I never thought the helplessness of someone was a sufficient technicality to justify terminating their existence.
“If you can not conceptually differentiate between a potential human being and a human being, that is your own problem,”
Hi Rory – we can distinguish between the two. A real human being has unique DNA, for example, just as the unborn do.
You are right: An embryo is not a child. It is a human being, though. A human embryo, then a human fetus, then a human baby / toddler / teen / etc.
Please consult an embryology textbook. This is a scientific issue, and it is really not that complicated.
Rory,
If you can not conceptually differentiate between a potential human being and a human being, that is your own problem, and you can decide not to sanction an abortion. However, laws are (supposed to be) formed objectively, and we draw a clear distinction between what is and is not human.
Exactly. That is precisely why abortion is a moral wrong. If the embryo is not human, what is it? A plant? Armadillo?
From a purely biological (albeit not moral) standpoint, a blastocyst is clearly a human: the progeny of two humans can never be anything but a human. The aforementioned offspring does not become a human at any time other than at conception. Otherwise, you are seriously suggesting that every single pregnant woman carries within her a living, non-human organism – such is the stuff of sci-fi and horror, not of everyday life.
As for living – of course the embryo is living. Otherwise, it would be miscarried. If you imply that dependency upon another human is an excuse for not considering a human to be alive – despite growth, metabolism, response to the environment, and, generally, being the progeny of living beings that is not at equilibrium – then Siamese twins would not be “living.”
Oddly, the very POINT of abortion is to end the life of a living human. If it’s not human, there is no moral issue – the woman is not pregnant. If it is not alive, then she has miscarried. The very reason that women seek abortions is because, without them, a human will continue to grow within their wombs.
Maybe it’s the former engineer in me, but “objective”is my middle name. There is nothing “objective” about your desire to redefine basic biological terms to suit your political goals.
If it were, it would be a person, existing inside another person – how is that even legally possible?
Um, what on earth do you mean? Do you consider a nine-month foetus, on the verge of birth, to not be a person? Do you think that morality is dictated by legality? That your (pathetic) conception of the law is the means by which we determine scientific and ethical questions about personhood?
I’m sorry, but I’m a lawyer, and I’ve never seen any requirement in the law that persons must exist independently of one another. After all, Siamese twins are considered separate persons. Abigail and Brittney Hensel, for example, had to take their driver’s test twice.
This is hopeless.
Hi Nathan,
Care to expand on that?
Biblical model? Really? A woman who’s not a virgin on her wedding day, those who work on the sabbath, women raped in the city, and children who curse their parents must be stoned?
By Biblical model for applying capital punishment I meant multiple eyewitnesses and serious consequences for perjury. I was talking about murder, not laws from the Israelite theocracy.