Yesterday, a man named Troy Davis was executed in Georgia, thanks to capital punishment. I haven’t taken time to familiarize myself with the details of the case, but apparently there was evidence that led many people to doubt his guilty sentencing. This set off a firestorm of political debate over the interwebs about the death penalty and the political groups most likely to oppose or support it and whether or not that opposition or support is logically consistent or morally wrong. I’ve seen a lot of zingers flying back and forth in my Twitter feeds. It kind of irritated me because these zingers were wrapped in arrogance, and as you should know by now, arrogance is one of the 3 things that greatly irritate me about political commentary, so I thought I would come along and try to give some perspective to both sides.
Generally, those on the left support abortion but oppose the death penalty, and those on the right oppose abortion but support the death penalty. In the unfolding commentary about Troy Davis, it seems that many have been very eager to point out the hypocrisy of the position of the right. “How can u be pro-life if u believe in the death penalty? Hypocrisy at its finest!” ZING! “You aren’t pro-life if you’re cheering for the death penalty. Just saying.” ZING! Etc. Etc. Finding themselves on the defensive, many on the right are responding by eagerly pointing out the hypocrisy of the position of the left: “If abortion (killing innocent unborn babies w/out due process under law) is OK, then why’s the Death Penalty(executed w/due process) not OK?” ZING!
Let’s try to unpackage each of these perspectives, starting with the right. If you oppose abortion, how should you feel about the death penalty? Generally, conservatives oppose abortion because they believe a fetus is an innocent human being who deserves life. So isn’t it hypocritical to support life for a fetus but not for an inmate on death row? The typical conservative response might be that a baby deserves life because it is innocent, whereas an inmate on death row is guilty of a heinous crime and has forfeited his right to life. Thus, it is an intellectually consistent service of justice to protect the innocent and condemn the guilty.
That’s a good argument, but it assumes a perfect justice system. What if someone is falsely accused and convicted of a heinous crime? (Many believe this of Troy Davis, but whether or not you believe it of Troy Davis there are certainly plenty of examples in history of death row inmates who were later exonerated.) How can you support the life of an innocent baby but support the killing of an innocent man? Conservatives are so dumb! This is the hypocrisy that the left finds so repulsive.
Now let’s look at the left. If you support the right to abortion, how should you feel about the death penalty? Some oppose the death penalty because they do not believe human beings deserve death, even if they are guilty of a heinous crime. If you support abortion but oppose the death penalty on these grounds, the right finds you exceedingly repulsive. That’s fine if you you support the life of a guilty human being, but how can you also oppose the life of an innocent one?
Now many more folks oppose the death penalty because of the possibility of a wrong conviction, and they do not want to murder an innocent man. But if you oppose the death penalty because a small percent of its victims might be innocent, how can you support abortion where every single one of its victims is innocent? Liberals are so dumb! The right still sees this as repulsive hypocrisy.
Of course, each side probably thinks its own side is perfectly consistent. Both sides support the right to life of “innocent human beings.” The left doesn’t believe a fetus is a human being, and therefore hasn’t earned the right to life yet. (Unless you’re a hardcore environmentalist who doesn’t even support killing flies, in which case you’ve got a really big problem also supporting the killing of fetuses.) Meanwhile, the right doesn’t believe someone on death row is innocent, and therefore doesn’t have the right to life anymore.
But isn’t it possible that both sides are inconsistent? Is it possible that an intellectually consistent and morally sound position would be to oppose both abortion and the death penalty? So why are both sides accusing each other of supporting one of these two beliefs when they themselves support the other one? Plank in the eye, much? I’m encouraged that a lot of those calling out the right’s inconsistency seem to be Christians and pastors and the like. While I do not know the abortion positions of these people, I could assume that these are abortion-opposers encouraging their brethren to also be death-penalty-opposers.
At the same time, I haven’t seen any death-penalty-opposers on the left encouraging their brethren to also be abortion-opposers. Maybe it’s easier to throw zingers at the right about one high-profile death penalty than it is to face the thousands of abortions that occur every single day. But I hope that we can all consider the innocence, or potential innocence, of living beings in both arenas, and oppose both at the same time. If not, you better have a pretty good reason.
I enjoyed this entry. I’m generally conservative, but I’m against the death penalty (and abortion). I would note that abortion is a far more polarizing issue than the death penalty. I think it’s a lot easier to be an anti-death-penalty conservative than an anti-abortion liberal, for a number of reasons, and that may explain your observation that the left doesn’t seem to have anyone who opposes both while the right does.
Thanks. Thats a good point.. If we assume my point about innocent human beings, its probably easier to convince a death penalty supporter that some of them might be innocent than to convince an abortion supporter that some of them are human beings.
I have traditionally supported the death penalty, with the thought that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. Number one is the fact that the death penalty sends a clear message to our society: we are a civilized nation, and there are certain things that you just can’t do here without paying the price. If the punishment is supposed to fit the crime, then the death penalty would be the appropriate punishment in certain cases, at least in a system where no innocents ever got executed. That is the issue though. Until we have a perfect system (and we won’t ever have that), that is the sticking point for some people. Do we send a strong anti-crime message to the public at the risk of executing innocents, or do we defer due to the possibility of a miscarriage of justice at some point down the road?
Thanks for your comment. I think the imperfect system is the sticking point for me. It is not just a possibility of injustice down the road – we know now there are past death row inmates who we later learned were innocent. In fact I think the uncertainty argument works for arguing against both abortion and the death penalty. Even if Im not sure life begins at conception, Im not sure where it begins, so lets not kill it. Its possible that the embryo or the death row inmate is an innocent life, and while that life may die on its own, lets not actively destroy it in either case.
Great article. I have found that the death penalty and abortion share a very real commonality, and that is they both take away future life experiences of a human being. The fetus, even if not considered human now, will become human and have life. Much as an inmate on death row can continue to have life later on. It appears that life in prison is presently a social experiment, and that states of the union can choose which to employ, death or life in prison, is a great testing method to see if it works.
The issue with abortion that hasn’t been brought up here is the fact that we’re not talking about babies in pots – they’re inside another body, and there are always certain risks and difficulties involved with pregnancy, or worse.
So basically it’s a lot of bodily stress for the mother (or worse), and legalization of abortion basically means that they can’t be forced to put their own body on the line in order to sustain another one, if they’re not willing to.
It’s also known that if abortions aren’t legalized, many seek illegal abortions and those come with major health risks.
So that’s I think why the liberal perspective is “consistent” – it’s mainly about protecting the well-being of the mother than about KILLING an innocent cute baby.
Good argument. However one must beg the question about why so many mothers regret having had their abortion. In many cases, the abortion is being done at the desire of the young mother’s parents and not the mother, so we can say that although the law may prevent unwilling mothers from forcibly giving up their children, it also prevents embarrassed parents from forcing their willing daughter to give up her child. Laws exist to protect ourselves and life, and if a mother is performing an illegal abortion, she is breaking the law, and forfeits the protections the laws tried to bring.
We can find a middle ground here of course, is called the unadvertised method of placing children up for adoption. There are an excess of able and willing couples out there that cannot have children of their own but would provide an excellent home life for another’s baby if they are unable to provide. They are willing to pay the medical bills too 🙂
The difference that – in my mind – nullifies the contradiction is that, up to a certain point the fetus also holds the unique distinction of also being a part of the woman’s body. Call it murder if you wish, but I would still support a women’s right to choose what she does with her body.
In the case of the death penalty, a human’s right to life is being decided by a flawed system of justice or by no justice at all. In the case of abortion, a human’s right to life is being decided by the only person on earth who shares mitochondrial DNA with that human.
What we have here is a disconnect in society from having sex for pleasure and the choice to have a child. The two are cause and effect, they cannot be divided except through unnatural means. The harsh reality is that the mother by nature showed she is able to bear a child by having sex, and thus the choice has been made as to what to do with her body. This of course takes a bow to exceptions such as rape, incest, and if the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
Great point. Thank you.
I want for a woman to be able to have the opportunity to terminate her pregnancy within a reasonable amount of time beyond conception. I have no problem choosing her rights over those of her unborn child. But I will say that your point about the choice already being made when she agreed to the sex is a one that will likely shape my understanding on this issue in future conversations on abortion.
Jonathan, for the moment you are my resident expert on the subject of a woman’s right to choose. Obviously this is a topic that I have an interest in beyond just making contrary comments on blogs and news sites.
A friend of mine got married about five years ago. Soon after they were preparing for the birth of their first child when it was determined through ultrasound (and I suppose some additional testing) that the baby would be born with severe birth defects. They had to wrestle with the very topic we are now discussing. Only in their case I think you can agree that it was more than just do we want to have a baby or not. They clearly wanted a baby. But they did not feel prepared for the challenge of raising a child with severe birth defects, who may live a very miserable life and then die young. In addition, they were planning to have more children and wondered if all of their emotional and financial resources would have to be devoted to this one very disabled child at the expense of their other, supposedly healthy children.
The opted for an abortion. Since then they have had three very healthly, normal, rambunctious daughters. So..as my expert of the moment, please tell me if this young married couple were wrong to abort their first child?
Hi Tod,
Sorry, I had attempted to respond twice already and nothing got posted, so hopefully this works this time.
I appreciated your responses on abortion and they helped me see the issue at an angle that wasn’t included in my first comments. It is plain to see that I am no expert in this topic and therefore respectfully forfeit that title 🙂 The case of your friend’s abortion is a very sensitive subject and perhaps ought to be included on my previous list of situations where abortion may be considered: rape, incest, and the life of the mother is at risk. However, in each of these situations, the decision needs to be treated in all seriousness, weighing in the gravity of denying the existence of a life to all other considerations. Your friends seem to have taken this decision quite seriously and it rests their decision.
With regard to my previous comments about the women making the choice to bear children through the act of sex I think remain valid. Subtracting out that small portion of extreme cases (such as rape, incest, and medically mitigating circumstance), by and large most abortions performed are by unmarried mothers with an unplanned pregnancy. And again, most of those abortions are desired due to the opportunity costs of the mother in terms of jobs, education, and life style. (http://www.womenscenter.com/abortion_stats.html). To these I would suggest consider the gravity of a life not being given a chance to live should be given at least as much thought as someone on death row. In both cases there is the possibility of denying the future enjoyment of life to an individual. (ie: there are some that would argue the embryo is not alive, but this is nullified in the context that it mostly likely will have future life). In summary, from a previous suggestion, the proper way through this ordeal for the unwed, unplanned potential parent, is to carry the child and then put the child up for adaption. It is the only situation where all parties involved win and can get along with their lives (literally): The mother can continue her life and pursuits, the child is placed in a home where there physical and emotional needs are met, and there is a happy new couple! (the adopted parents)
To those that would suggest the unmarried mother with an unplanned pregnancy should keep the child I would ask this: Is this a selfless or a selfish act? What is in the best interests of the child? It certainly is not to deny it a future life through an abortion. It also is certainly not to deny the child a home with parents that can nurture both the child’s physical and emotional needs. As is turns out, placing children up for adoption is quite a selfless act and is a proper means of mending such a “mistake” (unplanned pregnancy). Lets not mend a “mistake” with yet another “mistake”..
Do you have any statistical evidence to back up the controversial claim that right-to-lifers tend to support the death penalty and death penalty opponents tend to support abortion?
I did not realize some might consider this claim controversial. Here is some polling on party affiliation regarding abortion and the death penalty. I cannot find polling of the two views specifically linked, but you will see for example that Republicans are 2/3 pro-life and 3/4 pro-death-penalty, so there is mathematically guaranteed to be some overlap and reasonably likely to be almost entirely overlapping, and the same is true of the reverse positions for Democrats.
I was recently discussing abortion with Debbi, who is “pro-choice.” At one point she asked me, “Are you against the death penalty?” Now usually, a let s-change-the-subject tactic like this should be handled by gently returning to the current subject of the conversation. But in this case I took a different approach.
“Oh yes,” I said, “I am very much opposed to the death penalty, as is our Priests for Life organization. I preach against it frequently.” “I see,” Debbi said. I continued, “Yes, you know, the death penalty is bad for a number of reasons. One reason is that it simply feeds into the notion that you can solve the problems of a society by putting people to death.” “That s right,” Debbi agreed. I went on to say, “We need to find better solutions than just pushing another person out of the way when they present a problem. Human problems demand humane solutions, and killing is not one of them.”
Little did Debbi seem to realize, in the midst of this exchange, that I was presenting to her an argument that applies perfectly well to abortion.
There is, indeed, an important connection between abortion and the death penalty, and my pro-life work throughout the world has shown me that opponents of abortion are very likely to be opposed to the death penalty as well. Certainly, they are not identical issues. There is a big difference between a criminal and a perfectly innocent baby. Yet at the same time, the difference is not so great as to obscure the equal dignity of both. As John Paul II declared in Evangelium Vitae, “Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity.”
While we use our full strength to abolish both abortion and capital punishment, it is also a healthy perspective to compare the statistics. Official statistics on executions in the United States have been recorded only since 1930 by the US Dept of Justice. The figures show there have been 4,381 executions from 1930 until February of this year. There were none in the 1968-1976 period. An historian named Watt Espy, director of the Capital Punishment Research Project in Headland, Alabama, has traced the history of the death penalty. In a work published in 1994, he estimated that 18,645 executions had taken place since the early 1600s in what is now the United States. If you add the 265 that have occurred from 1995 until now, you come up with a figure of 18,910.
Turning to abortion, the website of the Alan Guttmacher Institute (which is strongly pro-abortion) reports that in 1996 alone there were 1.37 million abortions just in the United States. That s 3753 per day, one every 23 seconds. In other words, the total number of deaths by capital punishment, for our entire history, is less than the number of deaths by abortion every five days.
God bless all who fight the death penalty; God bless all who fight abortion. Let s work together, convinced that even one death, whether by abortion or capital punishment, is one too many.