The only sad thing about the number is that America should execute more than 10,000 felons a year, but meddlesome courts have made up rules to prevent that.
Too bad Tookie wasn't the magic number 1000.
In support of the death penalty and its benefits as a macro-level societal mechanism (i.e., ridding society of some twisted individuals an making us safer), one could argue that the deaths of a few innocents are an unfortunate but necessary cost. Jonah Goldberg, I believe, at least at one time, advanced a strain of this argument. I don't necessarily have a problem with an all-but foolproof death penalty (which, despite the obscene redundancies in the system, we do not have), but given the unappreciable societal effect between execution and life in prison I don't think America has any business executing anybody until we can guarantee a system in which that not one innocent person has to die. For instance, prosecutorial pride is not a reason to deny a DNA test. Further, and albeit a somewhat external factor, the US makes some pretty strange--and a mere handful--of bedfellows when it comes to keeping the death penalty around (e.g., Iran, China, Sudan, etc.). If America is to be the beacon of democracy and justice, and essentially keep trying to convince the world that our way is right, keeping the death penalty around in light of these two factors alone doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.
As for abortions compared to executions... While I hold my breath waiting for less enlighted people of faith to value the life of an embryo, a murderer and a muslim the same, I think it is fair to say that whether one views abortion at ANY time post-conception as tantamount to execution is a matter of one's personal and fundamental moral and/or religious beliefs. As such, I don't believe it to be an area in which those beliefs should be dictated by legislation, whether I am in the majority or not...
1) Just as a reminder, I am also opposed to the death penalty, but I cannot get weepy for the deaths of 1,000 convicted murderers in 28 years as compared to the millions slaughterd legally during the same timespan.
2)Just going to change one word.
I think it is fair to say that whether one views murder at ANY time post-conception as tantamount to execution is a matter of one's personal and fundamental moral and/or religious beliefs. As such, I don't believe it to be an area in which those beliefs should be dictated by legislation, whether I am in the majority or not...
Slight revisions...
I think it is fair to say that whether one views abortion at ANY time post-conception as tantamount to execution or the act of abortion itself as murder is more particularly a matter of one's personal and fundamental moral and/or religious beliefs as to when life itself begins, and thus when a "life" can be ended in a manner that could be described as "execution" or "murder". As such, I don't believe it to be an area in which those beliefs should be dictated by legislation, whether I am in the majority or not...
This is the most agonizingly annyiung thing about the pro-abortion, err, pro-choice argument. Since we cannot all agree that abortion can quantifiably be labelled as murder, we should therefore leave it as a personal decision. Well, sorry, but if one believes that there is not a lick of difference between the murder of a three-month old fetus and a thirty-year old store clerk, one cannot simply let bygones be bygones and perit the former method of execution while prohibiting the latter. Governments are established to protect its citizens, and by looking the other way as it fails to protect the lives of over one million of its inhabitants merely because they have yet to be born is a complete deriliction of its most sacred duty.
But let's not legislate morality, which of course is the biggest pile of malarky ever uttered. What's welfare? What's medicare? What's social security? What's the minimum wage? If you don't think that's legislating morality, then you are completely naive.
Ahh, but there is no fundamental disagreement, at least among reasoned minds--or to put it another way, enough momentum existed and continues to exist to overcome such disagreement, over whether the needs purportedly addressed by the programs you mentioned do in fact exist. Rather, the core of the debate lies at the eligibility for and the amount of those entitlements.
Your pro-abortion mis-characterization is insulting and inaccurate, but necessary to support your own argument. No one is pro-abortion. Period. There are those who (healthily outnumbering those who do not I might add), with all due respect, find the unbending position that the a fertilized egg or a wholly unviable fetus (granted, this is a topic of rationale debate) constitutes life and that even an abortion during that time would consitute murder to be "the biggest pile of malarky ever uttered."
"Governments are established to protect its citizens, and by looking the other way as it fails to protect the lives of over one million of its inhabitants merely because they have yet to be born is a complete deriliction of its most sacred duty."
Form me to understand by comparison... So is it because the hundreds of thousands of already sexually active Africans dying of AIDS who should and could have been properly educated on birth control ALONG WITH abstinence through US-funded programs are not American citizens that its not a "deriliction of [our government's] most sacred duty" to protect life? Or, should Americans, despite the fact that a majority of us would find this abhorent (if they bothered to pay attention, of course) sit back and complacently continue to be force-fed this administration policy based on what happens to be the president's and his base's draconian construance of christian "values" (i.e., effectively that death by AIDS just punishment for pre-marital intercourse), in the same manner that pro-life absolutists propose to graft via legisltation their own religious beliefs-as to when life indeed begins--on the rest of the country?
Fight for what you believe in. I'm all for that and it is your right as a citizen; just as it is mine to do the same and not have my beliefs dictated to me by the legislative agenda of the minority. If one believes that life begins before the cigarettes are lit, then they should never have or do anything to support an abortion, and should spend their lives convincing others of the same. That does not however, mean that others who do not share those beliefs have any obligation to agree, capitulate or otherwise be subject to or restricted in their actions by them.
But paul, aren't you ignoring that the abortion debate seems to be a zero-sum game? Either way, one side's viewpoints will be forced on the other? How can you criticize the pro-choice position when you would, had you your druthers, do the exact same thing in principle (force your views on those who do not share them)?
Either way, one side's viewpoints will be forced on the other?
That's called politics - there will be losers in any debate. My point was not to criticize pro-choicers for forcing their views on others, but for the disingenuousness of their "you can't legislate morality," laissez-faire argument. You're exactly right that one viewpoint will prevail, but again, that's life.
Your pro-abortion mis-characterization is insulting
As is your advocacy for the legality of a procedure that kills unborn children. So, tough shit.
Paul,
One of the reasons I visit this blog so frequently, is, aside from the bit of snark, there seems to be relatively good-natured respect for the various interlocutors who post and comment here. I would be disappointed to learn that you countenance insulting an interlocutor because they disagree with a position you feel strongly about.
If you are frustrated most with the pro-choice 'no legislation of morality' argument, I will never cease to be amazed that the pro-life proponents insist, despite all rational and empirical evidence to the contrary, that the vast majority of pro-choice advocates somehow seek to encourage people to have abortions.
Do you really believe that? That most people who identify as pro-choice are big fans of abortion?
TP, with all due respect, the term pro-choice, and all the lingo related to choice, is used to mask the gravity of the issue. By making this an issue about choice, your side has co-opted public opinion. But the procedure we're talking about is abortion, not choice. When we start referring to what we're really talking about, without a lot of coded talk, then public opinion is less solidly behind the continued legalization of abortion.
Further, there is a certain minority of people that do seem to encourage more abortions, and at least one doctor has shown his true colors. Granting that you are not personally in favor of promoting abortion - well, why? What is it that gnaws at you in the back of your mind as we discuss the issue? Why is it that so many pro-choicers or whatever need to make this qualification? Why do you need to distance yourself from the actual practice of abortion?
It seems that you are at least subtly aware that something is wrong with the procedure. But what? Could it be the taking of a human life that bothers you? And if it bothers you, then why can't you take that logical leap to think, hey, maybe we as a society shouldn't do that.
But if you ultimately conclude that it's not murder because it's just an unviable clump of cells, then why do you need to jump through hoops to maintain that you're not really pro-abortion? I mean, if it's not a life, who friggin' cares? Just suck it right out of the womb like it's a cancer.
You see, it's either a life and worth protecting, or it's not a life and not worth protecting, and if it is not worth protecting, why be bothered at all. It's just a clumop of cells after all, right?
Paul,
Come now. You don't really expect me to enter into a debate about abortion in the blogosphere, now do you?
Let's dispense with the pedantry (no offense intended; few are more pedantic than I) and actually address the point I raised: do you really believe that the vast majority of those who self-identify as pro-choice are actually in favor of abortion? That they are working to encourage as many women as possible to have abortions? Does that seem reasonable to you?
If the answer is no, then let's gun for intellectual honesty in the terms of our debate, if nothing else, ok?
Also, a word of advice that was given to me from a federal appellate judge: the term 'with all due respect' usually translates, especially in the context of a debate, as 'Interlocutor, if you weren't such a silly jackass, I wouldn't have to explain this to you again.'
The same judge told me he perceived it as deeply insulting when an attorney addressed em that way at argument.
Just sayin.
I guess my response to "tough shit," is that upon reflection, while grossly misinformed as TP points out, I should be no more insulted at your charactization of pro-choice advocates as "pro-abortion" than I would be about flinging criticism or insults at me because I don't take communion or go to mass. It's not about legislating, or not rather, morality, it's about turning legislation into the pulpit for a particular group. Where the "group" is by the slimmest of majorities, or majority is unclear, the less restrictive should rightly prevail. Pro-lifers, despite their best intentions or in the metaphysical sense, are not legally harmed when an abortion takes place; for a woman who holds no value or belief, be it religious or moral, that life begins at conception, getting an abortion (let's say at 6 weeks for the sake of example) is simply an issue of individual choice. Contrarily, if that woman does not get an abortion, the pro-lifers have no tangible benefit, but the woman had the pro-lifers' religion (I recall reading about free exercise of religion somewhere) crammed down her throat and is now forced to carry a child and at the very least go through an adoption ordeal. I understand this is a passionate issue, especially for those whose pro-life views are rooted in their faith; but it is exactly that THEIR FAITH.
I usually mean it earnestly, as in I do respect your opinion, but you're completely wrong. But you are right in that it something of an annoying turn of phrase.
Well, I didn't want to discuss abortion at all per se, though of course I should have known.
In all honesty (another annoying turn of phrase, I know, but better I hope) I think you're applying a rigid standard of what it means to be pro-abortion. No, of course I don't think you're actively encouraging abortion, but your position ultimately calls for the maintenance of abortion as a legal procedure, thus in that sense you are pro-abortion.
We've had this semantical debate before, and I came around to the view that it was wrong to use the term, but I do maintain that there's just something intellectually dishonest about it. It's not that I don't sympathize with you or repeal on what might be perceived as an insulting phrase as I always turn red-faced whenever I see the idiotic term "anti-choice."
At any rate, enough of this. (And technically, there was an err, pro-choice after I said pro-abortion, so I never flatout used the term. Okay, okay, I know). Let's go back to not talking about the death penalty.
Ok, so I wasn't going to jump in to this debate as I'm sure my views are well known, but Paul's last comment, as usual, was thought-provoking and merits a reasoned response.
Let me first say that I understand and respect where Paul is coming from. Although I disagree, I know he is sincere in his beliefs and does everything possible to be as consistent as possible on this and other subjects. That said, Paul I think you are short-changing the "choice" position and shifting the terms of the debate to more favorable grounds. (Note these are things that good persuasive debaters and advocates do, so I'm not insulting, just commenting.)
Here's what I mean. The pro-choice position, at least to me, means that it is the individual, not the government that gets to make the determination that you want people to make. Namely, is a fetus a "life worth protecting" or is it merely a "clump of cells?" The fact that I and many, many others profess not to know is exactly why the "choice" position exists. Assuming that this is a debatable proposition, than who should get to make the final call. (Of course, my phrasing suggests that it is possible and quite reasonable for one to take the position that this is not a debatable proposition, and thus, the rest of my comment is irrelevant.) My answer to this question is simple, each individual woman. Thus, some women can decide that it is a "life worth saving" and carry the fetus to term with no repercussions from the state. Similarly, other women can decide that it is merely a "clump of cells" and have a medical procedure to remove them, also with no repercussions from the state. The "choice" position, again, as I advocate for it, does not attempt to answer the ultimate question, nor does it (or should it) cast judgment in favor of either option. That is why the "pro-abortion" rhetoric is so inaccurate and insulting to some. It assumes a value judgment that is absent (quite purposefully so, for some) from the debate. I for one don't have a problem with either position. If you want to believe it is a "life worth saving" far from me to criticize or interfere. Personally, I don't agree with the proposition that a fetus is a life, but that's simply a personal position and as such as no place in the policy debate. The policy choice that I as a "pro-choice" advocate make is to let the individual decide. It is not a policy choice in favor of a specific outcome. Thus, I believe I can quite consistently say that I hope more people choose to carry fetuses to term than to abort them, this is because it is the option that I seek to preserve not necessarily the outcome.
Granted, there are some who will criticize this position as "wishy-washy" and yes, I suppose it does lend itself to the seemingly inconsistent position of being pro-choice but "not personally in favor of promoting abortion," however, I don't necessarily find as much problem with this as others might. I'm als
contd...
I'm also not going to say that my careful, nuanced, philosophically liberal (as opposed to politically liberal) position is the one pushed for or advocated by many of the "pro-choice groups," but it is a consistent position that I think reflects the position of the vast majority of reasonable persons who consider themselves pro-choice.
But repeal, if the woman is permitted to go through with the abortion, then her beliefs are rammed down the preborn child's throat, or rather a scapula is rammed through its skull. So someone's going to be burdened either way.
And that's not meant to be as flip as it sounds. Honestly, to those of us who are pro-life, we view that child as valuable and worthy of protection as any soul actually born. The difference between you and I is simply about whether the preborn are as worthy of the same protections as the born. That's not a matter of faith, because if it is, then murder itself should be legal because of that whole Ten Commandments thing - I mean, after all, we're just imposing our morality by insisting that the born not be killed.
And you might counter that we as a society have reached a consensus on the murder of post-natal human beings. But, as you like to point out, views change. There once was a consensus view on the legality of slavery as well. Just because a consenus might currently agree does not mean that the supposed action merits legal protection.
Morality comes into play only once you have accepted that the unborn (preborn, whatever) is a lving being. But if you have accepted that, then it seems even an atheist would acknowledge that it should be prohibited.
I think Mouldy did an excellent job of describing the essence of the "pro-choice" position. In particular, the whole debate starts with a judgment of namely, whether is a fetus a "life worth protecting" or is it merely a "clump of cells." What I think we can agree on is that so long as we answer that question differently (i.e., you say absolutely that it is life and it is not subject to individual belief or judgment and we say that whether or not it is "life" is an individual choice based upon one's own individual beliefs and those with differing beliefs shouldn't be subjected to the beliefs of others through government restriction), we will never agree on the ultimate issue.
You're right, we won't ever agree on this issue. All I will say in conclusion is that people justified the institution of slavery because they individually believed that blacks were in fact inferior human beings.
Your pro-abortion mis-characterization is insulting and inaccurate, but necessary to support your own argument. No one is pro-abortion. Period.
I don't know if someone else addressed this comment in-depth already, but I had to skip down to address it before I lost the fire.
The so-called pro-choice movement can legitimately and fairly be called pro-abortion by critics. This is both legitimate and fair because, any way you slice it, people who consider themselves pro-choice (an Orwellian euphemism, if ever there was one) are inherently at least in favor of the policy of abortion. Therefore, referring to someone as being "pro-abortion" is an accurate way of summing up their favoring of the policy of abortion, if not their outright preference for the physical act of abortion.
One might then wonder why characterizing someone who favors abortion policy as being pro-abortion might ruffle their pro-abortionist feathers. I chalk it up to the left's discomfort with being stuck with an accurate label: they are uncomfortable being associated with the policy, even at a time when the Democrats rely so heavily on their pro-abortion base to stay afloat politically.
(Just think back to a few weeks ago, when DNC Dean couldn't even admit to Chris Matthews that his party was the party that favored abortion. Talk about denial.)
[W]e won't ever agree on this issue. All I will say in conclusion is that people justified the institution of slavery because they individually believed that blacks were in fact inferior human beings.
What has always struck me about the abortion debate is the remarkable historical parallel between it and the slavery debate.
The arguments in favor of slavery were cloaked in ways of thinking that we would not even give a moment's attention to today. Pro-slavery advocates frequently stated that blacks were inferior and therefore did not merit humane treatment; that slavery was a way of protecting slaves from a harsh world that they were ill-equipped to handle; that slavery was a way of providing freedmen and slaves alike with economic and personal stability; that slavery was the gift of civilization, since it drew support from the Bible; that no government has a right to meddle with one's slaves, since slaves were private property; and so on.
No one with any credibility buys any of those assertions about slavery today because they were (c'mon, say it with me) rationalizations for an evil practice. If you were to put your ear to the rail of the current abortion debate, you would hear those same strained, nervous rationalizations of abortion that you heard for slavery more than a century ago: that fetuses aren't human; that preventing abortions infringes upon the rights of the mother; that abortion is preferable to bringing a child into a world of poverty; and so on.
These are the rationalizations of a dying view point. And with any luck, abortion, like slavery, will become a casualty of human progress.
One more thing:
TP, I cannot speak for Paul, but I can say that I know I have been involved in some heated exchanges in our little corner of the Internet, but at the end of the day, we do respect each other's viewpoints here. We also appreciate having each and every one of our TPS commentators drop by and give us their opinion whenever they can. Please do not confuse passion over an issue with anger at an individual.
And, yes, "with all due respect" is a polite professional's way of inviting one to go have sex with oneself. It certainly looks better on a transcript than the real thing, wouldn't you say? 
I'll assume, GC that you continue to find the slavery/civil rights analogy as inapplicable to gay marriage/rights as I do abortion. Otherwise, I'll expect some serious enlightenment on your part... I mean if something that is wholly incapable of living/breathing on its own is deserving of equal treatment...
I know that you would love to break this down to a left/right red/blue (and yes, Dean looked like a monkey f*cking a football on Hardball, but I digress) debate, but it's just not. Like anything else, this debate is a matter of degree to a certain extent. For example, opposition to abortion in the 3rd trimester would gain a supermajority of public support, whereas opposition to the practice in the 3rd week would be largely confined to those of religious persuasion. Is there a line, sure. In front of that line do, at least INHO of what the position should be based on (and it seems Mouldy's as well) do pro-choice adherents believe that the decision is one that should be left to the mother based on her own beliefs, yes. Granted, we can certainly argue as to where that line is, but fundamentally, no one is supporting an increased frequency of abortion; and, although it lends to the fire and brimstone, it is disingenous to say so. Also, while I understand the necessity for some absolutism that stems from religion, it truly boggles my mind that in the absence of an outright ban on abortion (which I think is pretty unrealistic despite W's SCOTUS nominations) that these, call them religious pro-lifers, don't at least accept lesser "evils" (in their view) that would undeniably, and drastically, cut down on the need for actual abortion procedures (i.e., everyone can agree this is a good thing) at any cognizable point in the pregnancy, such as Plan B on one end, and the use of birth control on the other.
GC,
I think your argument on pro-choice equaling pro-abortion is little more than sophistry, as Paul essentially conceded. Most people who self-identify as pro-choice are not in favor of encouraging abortions.
The fact that their views may or may not result in an increase in abortions is relevant, but the term pro-abortion implies much more than this pedestrian and trivial point (to which few pro-choice advocates agree). It implies the ridiculous and offensive view that advocating a pro-choice position is equivalent to wanting to encourage more women to have abortions.
If you buy that equivalence, if you honestly believe the argument you are pushing there, one that paul has already admitted is inaccurate, then I have a bridge in Arizona you might be interested in.
If all pro-choice advocates can be fairly labeled pro-abortion, then all pro-life advocates can be labeled anti-choice. That's about as unfair as the position you have taken.
edit:
The fact that their views may or may not result in an increase in abortions is relevant, but the term pro-abortion implies much more than this pedestrian and trivial point (to which few pro-choice advocates DISagree).
I think your argument on pro-choice equaling pro-abortion is little more than sophistry, as Paul essentially conceded. Most people who self-identify as pro-choice are not in favor of encouraging abortions. . . . If you buy that equivalence, if you honestly believe the argument you are pushing there, one that paul has already admitted is inaccurate, then I have a bridge in Arizona you might be interested in.
TP, go back and read exactly what I wrote. It has to do with the policy and not necessarily the act. In that light, it is reasonable, regardless of whether or not Paul and I are in agreement.
There is no other policy in the world where the adherents of said policy want relevant language kept as far from the arena of public debate as possible when discussing the issue. I find it baffling, but in the end, it gives me hope that abortion's "proponents" run screaming from the use of the word.
Further, I am not sure GC and I are in disagreement. I said that those who want to keep abortion legal do not seek to actively encourage abortions, but that their desire to keep abortion a legal option legitimates the use of the term "pro-abortion."
Based on the proceding justification of the term "pro-abortion", I assume you consider yourself "anti-gay", or "anti-peace", for advocating policy positions that enshrine discrimination and promote violence, respectively.
Absolutely, deuce. While I am certain neither paul nor GC actively discriminate against GLBs, the fact remains that their unwavering opposition to gay marriage results in larger numbers of GLBs who cannot enter into legally sanctioned relationships, which even they would not contend is assuredly contrary to what the vast majority of GLBs actually want.
Therefore, it is legitimate to deem them anti-gay.
It has to do with the policy, not necessarily with the act, right, GC?
It's easy to play the absurd game of sophistry. Define terms with some intellectual honesty, at the very least.
Quoth Paul: "I came around to the view that it was wrong to use the term."
GC has not evinced any agreement with this POV. He is quite unabashed is his position that the term is fair.
Therefore, it is legitimate to deem them anti-gay. . . . It has to do with the policy, not necessarily with the act, right, GC?
Actually, TP, perhaps the more accurate way to think of the two sides of this debate is to think of my side as the "pro-marriage" side (since it seeks to preserve the institution of marriage as it is) and your side as "anti-marriage" side (not that your side is opposed to the concept of marriage, but that it seeks to redefine the institution of marriage and is therefore in effect seeking the end of marriage in its current form).
In all seriousness, not wanting a total, top-to-bottom redefinition of marriage does not render one anti-gay, in the same way that not favoring "affirmative action" (another glorious Orwellian euphemism) does not render one a racist. I expect such hystrionics from the left generally, but I do expect more from our contributors. And I take comfort in knowing that our readership is sophisticated enough to know the difference between logic and hystrionics.
Not that I have a dog in this fight, but I'm really confused about how a segment of the population that wants to expand marriage, i.e., allow more people to participate, can be properly labeled anti-marriage? This formulation seems to me inherently contridictory on its face, but maybe I'm just missing something becuase I didn't read the previous comments.
I'm really confused about how a segment of the population that wants to expand marriage, i.e., allow more people to participate, can be properly labeled anti-marriage?
Mouldy, while that was partially tongue-in-cheek, there is an argument to be made that people who would seek to radically alter a particular social institution would effectively change to the point of being unrecognizable, and perhaps even in contravention to the institution's original purpose.
In a nutshell, it's kind of like Russia wanting into NATO.
GC,
Pay attention to what I am doing. I don't for a second believe that you are actually anti-gay, nor that a position in opposition to gay marriage is necessarily equivalent to hating GLBs. I am demonstrating what I perceive as the apparent sophistry in your argument that the term 'pro-abortion' is legitimate by demonstrating that the same absurd sophistry can be used to buttress all manner of invalid conclusions.
Also, I can do without the pedantic and condescending lectures on the difference between logic and histrionics. We're not going to agree on much; that's fine, but I honestly do not believe it is because either you or I is ignorant of or lacks facility with logic and argument.
I don't for a second believe that you are actually anti-gay, nor that a position in opposition to gay marriage is necessarily equivalent to hating GLBs. I am demonstrating what I perceive as the apparent sophistry in your argument that the term 'pro-abortion' is legitimate by demonstrating that the same absurd sophistry can be used to buttress all manner of invalid conclusions.
TP, I disagree that they are comparable labels. In my opinion, to call someone "pro-abortion" because they favor preserving the act of abortion for women is reasonable. Similarly, it would be reasonable to refer to someone as "pro-gay marriage" if they do in fact favor gay marriage, or "anti-gay marriage" if they oppose it. Calling someone "anti-gay" is an entirely different ball of wax, because it implies that such people oppose homosexuals as people. That is wrong and misleading.
I would also just like to go on record and say that I am not anti-gay marriage, but pro-federalism, in that I actually believe federalism is a viable force and not just something to be given lip service during political campaigns. And it is because I am pro-federalism, and because the Constitution in no way addresses marriage (homosexual or otherwise), that I think states have the ultimate say on how to decide this issue. If a state passed a law redefining its civil marriage to allow for homosexuals to marry, I would be fine with it,provided that it was in fact a law passed by the duly elected legislature.
Again, what bothers me is not the policy but the means by which people use the courts to shoehorn their policy preferences down our throats under the guise of constitutionality.
P.S. I spelled histrionics wrong in the above comment. My bad.
Commenting by HaloScan
