Contact
Life, in every single case
Sarah Lenti
If a person is ‘pro-life’ in the instance of an unborn child, then shouldn’t that person be pro-life and anti-death penalty in the instance of a born and living human being?
2012 is here and it’s pounding at your door, blasting over the radio airwaves, and likely interrupting your TV-watching time. Further, if your world is anything like mine, that big presidential race ahead is somehow managing to creep its way into every conversation, meeting, chit-chat, dinner or you-name-the-form-of social interaction.
And, no – these are not straight President Obama vs. Governor Romney discussions, nor are they straight who-should-be-the-V.P.? debates.
Case in point, just the other night, a party of four of my dearest friends met to catch up, grab an appetizer and an adult beverage. As we were chatting, 2012 rolled into the conversation. After we finished with Rubio vs. Christie vs. Bloomberg, we starting talking issues: the economy, Iran, how the Affordable Care Act would come down later in June. (Nerd alert, I know – we embrace it.) The ACA discussion then turned into a Supreme Court discussion, which turned into a Roe vs. Wade discussion.
Now, I do not want to turn this particular blog into a Roe vs. Wade argument, and so I won’t. I will take the liberty, however, to say this: It has forever baffled me that those who are so unabashedly and outspokenly “pro-life” when it comes to the Roe vs. Wade decision are oft the very same people who aren’t consistently pro-life when it comes to other socially-charged issue like stem-cell research and the death penalty. (Note, here I am referring to friends, family, strangers who proclaim to be “pro-life” and, in fact, would not deny being single-issue voters in political elections.)
Perhaps this is too simplistic, but in my mind, if a person is vehemently proclaiming to be “pro-life,” then shouldn’t that person be pro-life across the board? Meaning if a person is “pro-life” in the instance of an unborn child, shouldn’t that person be pro-life and anti-death penalty in the instance of a born and living human being? It’s only logical. If a person is going to be/argue “pro-life,” then please be just that – pro-life.
Getting the death penalty wrong
With respect to being pro-life — and, while I could talk about the stem-cell issue – I will leave that for another blog. Instead, let’s take a look at the death penalty for just a moment. It’s a fact that the repercussion of the death penalty is just that – death, and death by execution. So again, if a person is voting on “pro-life” issues, then being pro-life would beg that you are anti-death penalty. Right?
But, what about issues of justice, you ask? Good question. For example, when a person is convicted of murdering another innocent human being, can’t a person still be pro-life and pro-death penalty because of just that very thing called justice? My response would be no, because taking a life is taking a life – and that’s not pro-life.
For the sake of being the devil’s advocate, let’s look at an October 2011 Gallup Poll, which found that 61 percent of Americans are in favor of the death penalty in the instance of murder. Interestingly, 41 percent in that same poll said they believed the death penalty was applied unfairly. Excuse me, but where is the justice in an unfair execution? Am I missing something?
Note that since the death penalty was restored in mid 1970s under Furman vs. Georgia, we know that “at least 39 executions have been carried out in the United States in the face of compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt.”
Getting the death penalty wrong in even one instance is wrong, let alone 39 instances.
Life should be about justice – in every case
Back to the original point of this blog: If a person is going to sing the banner of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as unalienable rights guaranteed to citizens under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, then please understand that issues of life extend beyond Roe vs. Wade.
This is an intellectual argument, not just an emotional argument.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was beyond wise and eloquent when he remarked that, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
Life should be about justice – in every single case. That’s my personal bottom line.
For the record, I am not advocating one position or the other with respect to the many issues of life. I am, however, suggesting that voters should think beyond single issues when it comes to the polls, and, moreover, aim to be more ideologically consistent, especially when it comes to the not-so trivial issues of life.
Sarah Lenti is the blogger behind NMPolitics.net’s The Savvy. E-mail her at sarah@nmpolitics.net.
14 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
stever, since the right-to-life movement has gone out of its way to combat any medical procedure that allows women more control over their reproductive strategy, I think that qofdisks’s statement was fair. But that’s probably because I think the sexual revolution empowered women, a sentiment I am sure is not universal.
If the following comment makes you an angry reader please consult your psychiatrist:
speaking of falsely accused innocents who are put to death, one should also consider the women who uses abortion as birth control, if a woman continues to have abortion after abortion perhaps it is time for her to be fixed especially if her need to extinguish soul after soul sees no end in sight.
far be it from me to tell a woman what to do with her body but if a woman has consentual sex perhaps an abortive decision should include the Father of the child. Happier endings or beginnings as the case may be would certainly result.
Happy Mother’s Day!
Artiofab I only made that statement is reference to gofdisks blanket assertion of what the pro-life movement represents. I made no reference to the your comment or your position.
any real understanding about the pro-life movement
The right-to-life movement, before Roe v. Wade, wished to keep a medical procedure (that can only be performed on women) illegal in the states where it was illegal, and undo the legality of said procedure in states wherein it was. Since Roe, it has wished to undo this legality nation-wide. The movement usually does not seek to help women prevent needing this medical procedure by any pro-active manner, such as promoting sex education in public schools, distributing condoms, or keeping or making prescription birth control (and/or other forms of contraceptives) affordable and easy to access. Instead, the only solution that the movement has for women who might want an abortion is: bear the brunt of pregnancy and give that kid up for adoption.
Does any of the above show any real understanding of the “pro-life” movement or do I just think I know it? Because I’ve apparently never had the right kind of substantive conversation about the issue with someone who disagrees with me? Since, seriously, the last time I had a conversation about the issue the other person kept calling me a baby-killer rather than use any civility.
IP, you are wise to take that approach, its just ridiculous to characterize the issue that way. I gave in to temptation.
artiofab — great points!
Qui Tam — thanks. New Mexico should be applauded. You know — and this applies to a lot of things in life and with respect to life — if you can’t get it right and are hurting people along the way, then don’t do it.
And on that note — a quote.
“I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice.” — Abraham Lincoln
Freddy V — regarding your comment, “[b]y that measure, shouldn’t all pro-choice advocates also be pro-death penalty?”
My answer — you read my mind. I actually had a similar closing paragraph in one of my drafts….and then I deleted it because the blog was starting to become too much of a term paper…meaning, I couldn’t end it.
“…but probably it does not include any substantive conversations about the issue with a pro-life person.. ”
Stever:
It should be noted that the converse is also usually true; this is why I personally tend to avoid discussing this particular topic. Quite simply, both side are arguing about two completely different issues.
The actual purpose of the pro-life movement is expressly to dis-empower women by denying them power over their own reproduction.
It does not appear you have any real understanding about the pro-life movement. Sadly I expect you think you do, but probably it does not include any substantive conversations about the issue with a pro-life person..
Your cognitive dissonance is understandable because you have mistaken the pro-life movement objective as protecting the human embryo or fetus. The actual purpose of the pro-life movement is expressly to dis-empower women by denying them power over their own reproduction. As pointed out continuously by pro-reproductive rights groups, the fundamentalist far right wing actually don’t give a fig about the well being of children.
from http://www.democracyfornewmexico.com/democracy_for_new_mexico/2012/05/house-republicans-once-again-cut-the-budget-on-the-backs-of-middle-class-families.html#comments
The House Republicans’ reconciliation bill replaces automatic defense spending cuts that they agreed to last year with cuts that will result in: Nearly 300,000 children losing free or reduce-priced school meals, on top of cuts to food aid at home for 22 million children;
and
http://www.democracyfornewmexico.com/democracy_for_new_mexico/2012/05/house-majority-moves-to-cut-childrens-health-insurance-program-could-have-devastating-effects-for-un.html#comments
House Majority Moves to Cut Children’s Health Insurance Program, Could Have Devastating Effects for Uninsured New Mexico Kids
if a person is vehemently proclaiming to be “pro-life,” then shouldn’t that person be pro-life across the board?
Maybe, but, the term “pro-life” is a term invented by the right-to-life movement (as it was called pre-Roe) when the SCOTUS decided that women have the right to control their own reproductive health for at least 1 semester of their pregnancy. It’s better to be “pro-” something than “anti-” something else, so the right-to-life movement’s advertising consultants chose “pro-life” over “anti-abortion”. The name stuck.
FWIW, Catholic teaching is consistent in regards to being “pro-life”, since it thinks any human involvement in hastening the death of an individual is wrong.
Thank God New Mexico ended it’s death penalty policy. Too many people are in prison on a lie or because of crooked politicians (which include judges) in New Mexico. Make no mistake about it, innocent lives have been ruined and career criminal politicians are running the street uncharged and continually breaking the law.
Sarah Lenti – this is an excellent commentary.
By that measure, shouldn’t all pro-choice advocates also be pro-death penalty?
Or should we recognize that abortion and the death penalty involve hugely different circumstances, and therefore having a pro-life outlook on an unborn child and having a pro-death penalty outlook on a man who raped and murdered a six year old girl is not incompatible.
(For the record, I am not giving you my views on either issue, I am just commenting on your argument.)