Jeffrey Lee Wood is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection tonight in Texas. I am an opponent of the death penalty not only because it does nothing to prevent serious crime, but also because it goes against my basic principles regarding life in general. Other than self-defense or in a time of war, taking the life of another human being is abhorrent.
The case of Jeffrey Lee Wood is one that simply amazes me. If you click on the title you'll be taken to the Washington Post website where you can read their article on this. Briefly, this is what happened:
He was sitting in the car outside of the store where they had arranged with the clerk to pull off a fake robbery - then all 3 would split the proceeds. Something went wrong and his partner shot the clerk in the head.
"Since the case began, lawyers and family members have argued that Wood was mentally unfit for trial. They say he has a severe learning disability, is easily coaxed into doing what he is told and is delusional. Wood signed a statement confessing to the crime."
Other than saving the citizens of Texas the expense of keeping him locked up for the rest of his life, I fail to understand what his execution will achieve. As a punitive action it goes too far, and as for setting an example for other criminals, it's impact is nil.
I find it mind-boggling that someone can oppose the death penalty, yet state with a straight face that abortion is a matter of choice, not murder. When asked when life began last Sunday, Senator McCain answered "at conception" - a viewpoint held by approximately 70% of all Americans. Senator Obama on the other hand, said that the answer to the question was "above my pay grade." Quite the dodge for someone who is supposedly going to lead us to great change.
In Psalm 139 God says 'I formed you in your mother's womb and before you were born I planned every day of your life'. Many Christians take the bible as the literal word of God, thus most Christians believe that life begins at the moment of conception. I tend to view the Old Testament as allegorical, not as the spoken word of God. Either way, it is clear that most Christians are not in favor of abortion, but there are a fair number of these same Christians that also support the death penalty.
Regardless of whether or not your pro-life and pro-death penalty, or pro-abortion and anti-death penalty, the incongruity of the positions defies logic in my eyes.
In a previous posting on abortion I suggested this: If the mother, after viewing the fetus clearly in the womb with the technology we now have available to do that, decides that she still wants to abort the fetus, then her "choice" can be honored. With all the judging we do of others on this earth, I suggested that Christians leave their judgements at the door step once the decision has been made by the mother, and concentrate on helping the woman who has had to make this difficult decision. Let God make the final decision on the morality of aborting the child, suppress your own judgements, and just help a fellow human being who will experience doubt, guilt and a myriad of other emotions.
While discussing the death penalty with my son, he asked, "If somebody killed me, wouldn't you want them killed too?" I told him yes, I would want that person killed, but that would be a visceral reaction on my part. After time and thought, my principles would prevail and I would not endorse the death penalty for the murderer. He couldn't understand how I could feel that way about his murderer. All I could tell him is that life has taught me may things: it can stop in a heartbeat; to retain anger and a desire for revenge hurts you, not the guilty party; forgiveness is the key to a happy heart, and the less judging you do here on the earth, the better you'll be judged when it's time for the final judgement.
With all of the other problems facing our world, a story like that of Jeffrey Lee Woods is seldom national news that draws the attention of the American public. That is unfortunate, but I believe that someday this country will come to the realization that killing someone as a punitive measure is strictly Old Testament - "an eye for an eye" - and it has no place in the evolution of mankind.
It would be nice if the world viewed war in the same fashion, but I don't know if that day will ever come.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
I agree with most of what you said Watson, but you can take away the cost savings of a death penalty in Texas:
• In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).
I found the parts of your discussion about abortion were distracting. Maybe both topics would have more impact if they were treated separately.
Both are highly charged issues.
bb,
I agree wholeheartedly. I didn't find ur thoughts on abortion distracting. Life is life.
sincerely
popinjay
When does life begin? Well, even before conception. The egg is alive and the sperm is alive and they both fit the definition of life. So life began even before conception.
The more fair question is "when does human personhood begin"? Unfortunately, that question requires some thought and not just quips. The life of a potential person begins at conception. It takes a couple days for a fertilized egg to even get to the 32 cell stage. Are you telling me that those 32 cells have the same rights as a person? What if the fertilized egg doesn't implant? Should the women who aborts naturally be charged with murder? What if the women smokes or drinks? Should she be charged with assault on her fetus?
Personally, I believe abortion should be a last ditch measure and should be as rare as possible. But I've long decided that it is a decision that the mother must make. It's her body not mine. I also believe that if men were the ones getting pregnant that we wouldn't even be discussing this issue.
I (gasp!) agree with NCL. I oppose the death penalty solely on economic grounds. It may be 2.3 million in Texas, but I guarantee that in some Northern states it can be 2 and 3 times that.
dear watson,
cheers to you for taking a thoughtful, principled position on this horribly difficult issue. as one who mostly lines up on the left side of things, i've long been perplexed by the apparent enthusiasm so many on the right have for the death penalty. i completely agree with every word you wrote about jeffrey lee woods, and moreover, it's quite refreshing to see someone on the right like yourself take your commitment to "life" so seriously.
that said, not everything in your post invites agreement. you wrote, "I find it mind-boggling that someone can oppose the death penalty, yet state with a straight face that abortion is a matter of choice, not murder". pcs already touched on this, but is it really that hard? if you believe that an embryo is a full human person from the moment of fertilization, then sure, i'd say there's no getting around that abortion is murder. but what if you don't accept that premise?
i for one do not. and hence i don't view abortion as murder. i believe that a woman's right to control her body trumps whatever "rights" an embryo or fetus inside her has. and for the pro-lifers reading this, let me add that at some point in the pregnancy, the balance must surely tip the other way; but that's a matter that i find incredibly difficult to sort out for myself. for now, i feel fairly comfortable with drawing the line at viability outside the womb. others will obviously hold different views (maybe someday i will too).
i think it's a shame that you took obama to task for his "above my pay grade" response. i find this andrew sullivan post illuminating. he points out that even the pope claims not to know when ensoulment occurs; just what would you expect a mere politician to say? we're electing a president, not a theologian-in-chief. as pcs and sullivan begin to touch on, the question of when human life begins must be one of the most difficult religious, philosophical, and scientific questions imaginable. i'm relieved at the prospect of a president with the good sense to stay out of it.
where does your 70% number come from? i wouldn't be at all surprised if it's true, but i'd also like to point out that this very question will appear on the ballot in colorado in the fall, where voters will decide if a fertilized egg should be considered a person. after a little googling, i was unable to learn much about its prospects, but my sense is that most analysts expect it to (probably narrowly) fail, and certainly not to come close to 70% approval -- despite colorado's historically rightward tilt and extremely strong evangelical presence. we'll have to keep our eyes on it.
finally, on the topic of polls, here's a link to gallup's polling on abortion. as of may, 54% of americans believe abortion should be legal under some, but not all, circumstances, and a whopping 82% believe it should be legal if you change that to "some or all". kind of puts the lie to the right's frequent claim that ours is a pro-life nation, huh?
My other reason for being against the death penalty is that I don't believe in punishment for revenge.
The Government certainly shouldn't be in the revenge business.
Life w/o parole takes the offender out of society. That's enough.
"When does human personhood begin?"
Let me answer that with a few more questions:
Do you believe that we have souls?
If we have souls, when do we get them? At conception, the first tri-mester, the 2nd, the 3rd, or at birth?
There are of course no pat answers, especially if you don't believe in God or believe that you have a soul? Using the word "personhood" reminds me of the label "pro-choice" - another semantic ploy to justify the termination of life.32 cells become a human being if left to prosper - so any interruption of that growth at any point in time is the death of one of God's children. That is the faith that I was raised on.
Having said that, I realize that many others don't share that point of view. I've likened the abortion issue to slavery in that it has the potential to divide the country like no other. As I tried to think of some way to keep the pot from boiling over, the only thing for certain was that each side would have to give a little.
I realize that even if you feel more strongly about "women's rights" then you do about the rights of the fetus, chances are your view reflects PCS's attitude: "...abortion should be a last ditch measure and should be as rare as possible."
If we try to avoid heated rhetoric and standardized talking points, maybe there is room for compromise. I know there are people on both sides of this issue who can see no compromise, and that failure is the crux of the issue.
With the technology that we have today, seeing the fetus in all it's beauty, in full color, is available. That's why I suggested this process:
1.) If a woman is contemplating an abortion, for whatever reason, they must first view the fetus that they are about to terminate.
2.) After viewing the fetus, if the woman still wants the abortion, the procedure is completed.
The "Pro-Choice" folks still have their choice, but only after the mother views the fetus. I believe that this would encourage greater thought regarding the life of the child, and consideration of offering the child up for adoption.
If the mother proceeds, then it is time to set your religious convictions aside and concentrate on the welfare of the woman. I'm sure that there are some women so jaded that an abortion is just a means to maintain their lifestyle, but for most women it must be one of the toughest decisions in their lives. When I look at my children and grandchildren, I try to imagine what mental turmoil a woman must be going through to make a decision on abortion.
That's why I suggested that at that point, Christians must put their judgements aside and help the woman. We all make judgements on people everyday, whether we're aware of it or not. My suggestion is that when it comes to abortion, let's remember that God is the ultimate judge in heaven, but here on earth, we have to tend to those who need our help, not stigmatize them.
I,like others, would prefer that abortion not be an option, but since this is a secular republic and not a theocracy, the opinions of my fellow citizens must be taken into consideration.
If you have a better suggestion as to how we reach a consensus on abortion, I encourage you to share it.
The 70% noted was from last year, but I can't recall who conducted the poll. Just a quick google of "polls of when life begins" will bring you to polls conducted by religious groups that show much higher numbers then 70%, but that's pretty much like preaching to the choir.
As far as Senator Obama is concerned, I found his answer to be disingenuous at best. He has an opinion, but apparently doesn't find it necessary to share with those he's asking to vote for him. I suppose it wasn't really necessary that he answer the queston because you can't head up the Democrat ticket without being pro-abortion.
I'm aware that "pro-abortion" offends some people, but there are many others that see "women's rights" and "pro-choice" as semantic games used to make the ugly truth a little less ugly. I suppose if I were running for President I wouldn't want to be labeled as pro-abortion either.
On a matter of such importance, wouldn't you want your candidate to state their views on one of the most devisive issues that faces this country? I would.
My thanks to all of you for considered responses, and my apology for once again ignoring the laws of brevity.
Pro-choice and pro-abortion are NOT the same thing and is not a semantic game. I am Pro-choice (as well as many others I assume), but I am not pro-abortion.
First, thank you, Watson, for recognizing that this is not a Theocracy. Try to get your thinking in line with that statement.
Second, recognize that abortion is legal because the Supreme Court declared it a right under the protection of the constitution. It's not going to be changed by a bunch of torch bearing radical fundamentalists harrassing and intimidating women and physicians.
Third, forcing a woman to view ANYTHING cooked up by religious wingnuts intent on undermining her rights to make decisions about her own body IS harrassment and intimidation.
Finally, You find EVERYTHING Obama says "disingenuous at best."
I am sick to death of Christians recognizing that this is not a theocracy and then trying to undermine the Constitution that this Democracy is based on.
No. Your god is not my god. Period. Amen.
So much for compromise.
I see no one decided to answer any of my questions regarding the soul, and the lower case "g" for God pretty much says it all.
As far as undermining the constitution, I'd be most enlightened if you could point out where in the constitution a woman is given the right to abort a fetus. I can't find it in my copy.
So what happens if the balance on the Supreme Court shifts and abortion is once again outlawed? Would you be ready for any kind of compromise then?
Your compromise appears to be the continuing slaughter of innocents. Using the language in the sentence above is just like your "torch bearing radical fundamentalists harrassing and intimidating women and physicians" - it serves no purpose other than denigrating your opponent.
I believe that both of you support pro-choice and would not encourage abortion, so in future discussions I will refrain from the term "pro-abortion" out of respect for your opinions and because I respect both of you.
The sole purpose of my suggestion was to seek a means of compromise that offers the fetus a chance at life while supporting the woman's ultimate decision regarding her body. That support should continue long after the abortion because the impact of aborting a fetus can have a long term effect on a woman both mentally and physically.
I guess I'm like the legislators that proposed the Missouri Compromise of 1820-21: trying to find a solution to a problem that has the potential to split this country in half. With all the issues occupying the front pages today, abortion has been placed on the back burner. It will not remain there forever.
There is zero evidence that a soul exists, only belief which is not evidence.
As for something being Constitutional or not, there are any number of laws that have been held to be Constitutional even with no specific mention in the Constitution. We had quite a debate on that issue on my blog a few weeks ago.
But, being a law abiding citizen, I believe that if abortion is made illegal, any woman who has an abortion must be convicted of first degree murder. If her husband goes along with her decision, he gets convicted as an accessory to murder.
I do have one question for Watson. Do you believe that consecrated bread and wine is the ACTUAL body and blood of Jesus Christ? Not symbolic, but the actual body and blood.
there are many points to address, so i'll try (and probably fail) to address each one briefly.
1) i don't know if we have souls or not. if we do have them, i don't know when we get them. call me a pessimist if you will, but i also don't think we in the u.s. will ever reach a true consensus on abortion -- and these topics are intimately related. at the risk of oversimplifying, i think it all basically boils down to core moral-religious beliefs. it's impossible to prove or disprove that we have souls; and in the abortion debate, one side believes (not without reason) that abortion is murder, and the other side (again, not without reason) doesn't. and these beliefs are founded almost entirely upon religion or deep moral convictions. i'm still a pretty young bird, but i think history has shown time and time again that it's virtually impossible to change anyone's mind about these kinds of things. that doesn't mean at all that we shouldn't discuss them, however; i think one of the few things that we can accomplish is to try to better understand where each other is coming from, even if any meaningful consensus is a goal beyond our reach. watson wrote "... since this is a secular republic and not a theocracy, the opinions of my fellow citizens must be taken into consideration" -- i think that's exactly the right point to emphasize.
2) i agree that the term "pro-choice" seeks to advance one side of the debate at the expense of the other (as does "pro-life"), but i find "personhood" to be both neutral and very useful. i think that disagreement over abortion is essentially a disagreement over when a fertilized egg or fetus gains sufficient status to outweigh the rights of the mother to control her body. it's helpful to give that sufficient status a name. perhaps you might prefer a different word in its place, watson, but i think "personhood" is a reasonable choice.
3) watson, your offer of a compromise is obviously well-intended, but i do find it overly intimidating, judgmental, heavy-handed, and oddly passive-aggressive. all but a vanishingly small minority of women who seek abortions find it to be an achingly heart-wrenching decision; isn't that enough? and i should also say that it's easy for me to criticize, as i don't have any real counterproposals besides improving access to and promotion of contraceptives. i do greatly commend you for your compassion towards those seeking an abortion.
4) on another linguistic point, watson, i strongly discourage you from using the term "pro-abortion". it's nice that you avoid it here out of respect for your commenters, but the real reason is that it's a horribly inaccurate slur: no one is in favor of abortion in and of itself! no one actively encourages abortion! no one wants more of them! (and by "no one", i really mean all but a few wackos, but surely you already know that.) pro-choicers encourage pregnant women not to seek abortions, but to, well, choose what's best for them, in their judgment.
5) do you really think obama is being disingenuous? do you really think he has an opinion? i think it's more than possible that he has no opinion, or hasn't sorted out his thoughts well enough to discuss them in public, or just believes that it's an inappropriate topic for discussion on the campaign trail. this is an extremely sensitive and yes, as you put it, divisive religious matter -- so wouldn't stating a clear answer just serve to divide us further? obama and mccain are running to be president of all americans of all faiths. i certainly think some discussion of religion on the campaign trail is reasonable and welcome, but in a "secular republic", going into when human life begins is going too far.
"So much for compromise."
I won't compromise on the seperation of Church and State.
HT - thanks for your input. You make some very good points:
#1 - "...history has shown time and time again that it's virtually impossible to change anyone's mind about these kinds of things..." That's the reason for my slavery analogy - it took a war and another 100 years for blacks to receive any kind of equality. Slavery was legal even though it wasn't stated in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court verified its legality time and again. The religious extremists like John Brown took matters into their own hands, as have the nut cases that bomb Planned Parenthood and kill abortion doctors. In both instances they were the absolute wrong actions to take.
#2 If we accept the concept of "personhood", what's to prevent us from extending that concept to older people who can't function, the brain damaged of any age, retarded people, crazy people - a Kevorkian nightmare to be sure but a practice that was employed by the Nazis. If we let our legislative lawyers loose on defining the term "personhood" what kind of Pandora's box will we be opening and who will suffer the consequences? "Oh, that could never happen here." Famous last words.
#3 I was forced to take another look at my suggestion regarding viewing the fetus and I must say I can clearly see why it would be viewed as intimidating, even if offered for the best of intentions. I just can't think of anything else that promotes a compromise. At this point, all I can do is pray that it doesn't take a civil war to resolve the issue.
#4 I will no longer refer to pro-choice as pro-abortion. It isn't accurate and it isn't fair.
#5 When human lefe begins is at the heart of the issue. A much more honest reply would have been: "I don't know the answer to that question, but I do support a woman's right to make the choice."
Perhaps the most disheartening phrase in your post was this: ".all but a vanishingly small minority of women who seek abortions find it to be an achingly heart-wrenching decision; isn't that enough?." So only a small minority of women find it to be a "heart-wrenching" decision - that says an awful lot about how nonchalantly we can terminate life. I always thought it would be a terribly difficult decision to make, but apparently if it's going to cramp your lifestyle and inconvenience you it's not that tough a decision to make. I hope you're not right about that.
PCS - as regards the sacrament of Holy Communion, whether or not I believe it to be symbolic or the actual body and blood of Christ is a good question. The technical term is "transubstantiation", first used in 1215. When Jesus conducted the first "Holy Communion" at the Last Supper, He said, "This is my body....This is my blood...". Whether He was being symbolic or literal I have no way of knowing. As a matter of personal faith I accept that I am receiving the Body and Blood of Christ and it makes me feel wonderful every time I take Communion. You now have your opening to scoff at my "superstitious" beliefs, which I believe was the intent of your question.
I will never compromise on the separation of church and state either. The beauty of this country is that you are free to practice your religion as you see fit, albeit with some restrictions like the Baptist snakehandlers (illegal in every state except West Virginia).
To deny that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles is to deny history. Thankfully our founders chose not to establish a "national" religion because of the hardships so many had endured in their countries of origin. That separation of church and state makes us the freedom loving country we are today and I wouldn't change that in a million years, but neither will I deny the religious principles that played a part in the founding of this great nation.
I have learned a great deal from the commentaries over the last few days, made some changes in the language used, and I sincerely thank all of you for your input. We may not agree on the issue of abortion, but the open exchange of ideas is always preferable to open warfare.
dear watson,
thanks for your reply. let's just jump in, shall we?
1) the slavery comparison is an apt one in many ways. but i think the scopes of the two debates are probably very different: slavery ripped the country apart in a rather literal sense, but i can't easily see the same potential in abortion. i would guess that the fiercest partisans in the abortion debate fight with a passion comparable to those in the slavery debate, but i doubt that the sheer numbers are there. if we're to believe opinion polls, then abortion consistently ranks as a rather low priority for the country as a whole. no country in the history of the world has gone to war, or suffered civil war, over abortion. it's difficult to speculate how public opinion will evolve, but i'm very skeptical that abortion itself will ever lead to anything remotely in the league of the u.s. civil war.
2) you raise some valid concerns. a few thoughts occur to me. i agree that it would be an extremely slippery business to try to formulate a legal definition of personhood that covers all the situations you mention. but that's not a standard we need to shoot for here; i think it would be just fine to try to discuss and understand the concept and all its ramifications on a more philosophical level. maybe it's just as simple as deciding that personhood is a status that, once attained, can never be revoked; i think there's universal agreement that, at the very least, newborns are "persons", so it's hard for me to see any unintended consequences arising from such an interpretation. maybe "personhood" is just too loaded and too evocative a word, and we'd be better served by another, more specific, one when discussing abortion. but i do think it's a good idea to have some word available.
5) i agree that if obama doesn't know when life begins, or if he thought it was inappropriate to answer, then he should have said so straightforwardly. i'm still comfortable with his answer, especially since he was on the spot at the time, but it was by no means perfect either.
as for my "disheartening phrase", i guess i'm guilty of understating what i intended to say. i'm sure there do exist women who obtain abortions under little or no moral dilemma at all (and i'm equally sure that such women do not regard abortion as the termination of life), but even for me to say there's a "vanishingly small minority" of them does suggest they form some kind of constituency, when in fact i believe there are too few of them to rise even to that standard. this reminds me a bit of the comment thread to your post here, where, back in my anonymous days, i spoke of a "tiny, negligible fringe of society" that hates the military. i still think that's right, and i think the number of women we're talking about now is much, much, much smaller.
Actually I had no intention of scoffing at your superstitious belief, although I prefer to use the word irrational. Actually, the term transubstantiation was first use by Hildebert of Tours about 1079. But that doesn't matter. What matters is that you cannot be a Catholic without believing that consecrated bread and wine is the actual body and blood of Jesus. Sorry, but I cannot believe that and it obviously untrue on its surface. I was just checking to see your level of belief.
Next, I suggest that you re-read the statement "all but a vanishingly small minority of women who seek abortions find it to be an achingly heart-wrenching decision; isn't that enough?." " Then reconsider your response. You often respond to what you want to read and not what is actually written.
Lastly, I submit that personhood is a very important concept. Every human cell has a potential to be a person. Are we going to start outlawing balding, menstruation, amputation etc. because we are killing human cells?
HT: Please excuse my misinterpretation - I read your sentence over again after your post & PCS's and I apologize for the misread.
PCS - yes, every cell does have the potential to become person, but only through scientific manipulation, not the preferred, more pleasurable method.
As far as the battle of semantics is concerned, if you feel comfortable with personhood, then that's all that matters. I'm not being facetious; every person is entitled to their own perspective.
Basically, we all agree that abortion should be the last option, but I can only support an abortion if the life of the mother is threatened.
HT I hope you are right about abortion not being an issue that could generate a civil war. This would not be a civil war ala 1861, but more likely an increase in the number of nut cases like Rudolph who take the law into their own hands. If giving blacks the right to attend white schools could generate murders 100 years after the Civil War, I worry about the zealots on both sides of the abortion issue. For my part, I can never accept abortion as anything other than infanticide, but other than expressing my feelings, I'm willing to let God sort things out.
As regards my "irrational" beliefs and those of the millions of Catholics around the world, I'll leave you with this little snippet from one of my compositions:
There's no denying
the simple truth
That faith is believing
when you don't have proof
Post a Comment