Life's Persistent Questions

Double whammies

I have been struggling with two related issues for quite awhile now. Not to parse words, the two are abortion and death penalty. Both are legal. Both are emotional and controversial. And I support both, if only for the sake of internal consistency--I admit that I do see some merit in the assertion that life began in the unborn fetus.

I had felt comfortable with the "double-death" stance until recently for I have become increasingly uneasy with the growing evidence that the delievery of death penalty, the ultimate punishment, in this country is flawed. So I needed to find a way to disassociate the pro-choice stance from the pro-death stance, which is not easy. I know the left (pro-choice/anti-death) and right (pro-life/pro-death) have arguments about why the life of a fully grown criminal is not the same as that of an unborn fetus, but I not going to take that easy way out because the inherent subjectivity in them.

Now I have finally arrived at an argument that at least temporarily gave me some "inner peace" as to how I can continue to support a woman's right to choose, but be suspicious of the death penalty.

Let us all agree on this single premise: in an ideal world, there will be no unwanted pregnancy and heinous crimes, therefore no need to perform abortion (except for medical conditions) and death penalty.

Since we are not living in a perfect world, the most reasonable solution to end either abortion or death penalty would be to decrease the need for them, i.e. decrease the number of unwanted pregnancy and crime.

So how can we do that? For unwanted pregnancy, it would definitely include preventive measures such as an honest and realistic sex education (in school or at home), accessible and reliable contraceptives, and assistance for family planning or alternatives to abortion after the pregnancy has occured. Fortunately, the people who are supposedly "abortion-crazy" are actually for all of that. That's why they are "pro-choice." On the contrarary, many of the pro-lifers on the right are against many of the things I just mentioned.

So now we turn to the death penalty. Well, unfortunately, most people who embrace the continuation of death penalty are in the business of law enforcement, and have the mentality of "catch 'em, nail 'em, execute 'em." There is very little of identifying the underlying factors that would lead a person to the point where he or she sees an assault on other people as his or her only option. No, I'm not saying every criminal is the product of society and the result of a disadvantaged upbringing. However, many are, and it's those criminals and future ones like them that we should try and may have the best chance to help.

So the difference between the pro-choice and the pro-death penalty camps is clear in my eyes. The former actively seeks to find effective and meaningful way to lower the use of an "extreme measure." The latter, which includes the re-elected president, only wishes to maximize the use of the "ultimate punishment" without express any concern to address the underlying social causes. While I do not yet feel comfortable enough to say the death penalty is unnecessary as a form of crime deterrence, I can say that I feel much more at ease saying that I am pro-choice at the same time.

Yo, democrats, there is plenty of room on this "pro-choice and death penalty-but" bandwagon, want to try it out the next election?

posted by hedgehog @ 9:01 PM