Oh goody. Abortionists are back. In keeping with the spirit of the article, let me explain the difference between abortion and adjudicated execution.
Both practices kill human beings. This is the similarity between the two. Now that we have gotten that out of the way, let's explore the differences, shall we. In the case of legal execution, the party being executed has committed a heinous crime against the body of society. He has proven himself to be a patent danger to other members of society and, in some cases, even to society itself. He has proven himself to be such a threat that his re-entry into society is unthinkable to a rational human being. This is the point where people invariably bring up the internment for life option. That would be valid, if the perpetual incarceration of the heinous criminal could be guaranteed. Unfortunately, it can not. Therefore, in order to guarantee that the heinous criminal can not re-enter society, either by escape or some type of judicial fiat, society resorts to execution of the individual to safeguard the rest of her citizens. I know, here comes the argument of "What if the society makes a mistake and the individual is innocent?" Well, in the first place. The condemned criminal is afforded a decade, or more, of legal appeals in which to prove his innocence and have his conviction set aside. But, the bottom line is if humanity and its constructs [society] were perfect, then we wouldn't have criminals and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Because of this lack of perfection, execution should be, and now is, reserved for those persons who have demonstrated their callous disregard for human life and through that their extreme danger to society.
Now, abortion. Those opposed to abortion hold a very simple belief. That is the belief that human life begins at conception, not at birth. Strangely, this is a belief that is apparently held by a majority of the states and the Federal government, as it has been legislatively deemed a homicide if a fetus as young as seven weeks is killed through criminal action. So if a fetus is a human being and a heinous mass murderer is a human being and your mother is a human being , why can't we just kill any of them at will? Because, the mass murderer is a demonstrable threat to society. Mom and the fetus are not. The mass murderer gets numerous opportunities to prove that he is, in fact, innocent of the crime. Yet, the harmless unborn individual has no such opportunity. With absolutely no judicial review, no appeals of sentence, in fact no crime, the unborn individual is killed out of hand; for convenience, by its mother.
Now, it is interesting to note that many people who oppose the death penalty support abortion. Why? Usually because, in their opinion, human life begins at birth, not conception. The question here is, what if they are wrong? Tens of millions of unborn children have been legally killed in the U.S alone, by their mothers, since the decision in Roe v. Wade. In the same time only a little over one hundred convicted murderers have been executed. All of the aborted human beings were innocent, while most, if not all, of the criminals were not.
Don't see a difference here? Look a little closer.
Friday, March 27, 2009
From a comment here: