In debating the death penalty with some people, I’ve noticed something. The majority of those who are against the death penalty support abortion rights. It’s something I don’t understand in the least. I’m not sure I want to.
This is where a gaggle of people go, “waitaminit–you’re a lesbian! You’re supposed to be pro-choice!” Well, I’m ‘posed to be a lot of things according to society. The only thing I’m supposed to do is pay taxes and die. It is possible, believe it or not, to believe in women’s rights and yet still believe that the unborn have rights, too.
There is a massive difference between the death penalty and abortion. I love it when pro-abortion activists point out that I believe in the right to life and yet still believe in the death penalty, because the instant they turn around and protest an execution, I’m right there, nipping at their heels.
I believe that life begins shortly after conception; when the heart is formed and begins to sustain that little life, that is when I believe an embryo becomes a life that should not be terminated. This occurs at four weeks. Past that, I believe abortion to be murder, taking a life that has no voice. And the only purpose for it is convenience.
Shouldn’t a woman have the right to choose when she will reproduce? Shouldn’t a woman have the right to decide what to do with her body? Absolutely! That choice can be made before you hop in the sack with some guy, whether you know him or not, and create the condition you say you don’t want to be in. Everything comes with consequences; if you drink too much, you get drunk and likely sick. You can avoid getting sick by stopping before you get drunk. If you then drive, you stand a good chance of getting into a wreck and hurting yourself or someone else. If you break the law, you’re likely to get arrested; in that case, you no longer have the right to choose what to do with anything.
I run the risk of pissing a few off with this one, but it’s true. Gay couples obviously can’t get pregnant. But anyone who sleeps around–gay or straight–runs the risk of contracting who knows how many different STD’s, not the least of which are Hepatitis B and AIDS, both of which are equally deadly. If you do not control yourself and your reactions you are begging for trouble, and pregnancy for straight couples is one of the big ones that causes issues.
What if you get pregnant after a rape? Honey, if you’ve been raped, you need to go to the hospital, have a rape kit done, file a report and the doctor will offer you a morning-after pill that’ll take care of that. You should have more respect for yourself in that instance than to let the piece of $@#^ who did it get away with it.
A child cannot decide whether it wants to live. It has no voice. It does, however, have a beating heart, fingers, toes, eyes, a brain, and a soul. It is incapable of doing wrong and has no ability to choose. A criminal, on the other hand, has moved past that stage; he knows the difference between right and wrong, has the ability to choose, and has chosen to do wrong. When that criminal takes a life for no purpose other than convenience, he is making a choice that will have a consequence–and it may very well be giving up his own life in return for the one he stole.
We have laws against animal cruelty. Why? Because animals do not have free will and thus are completely innocent. Should we show more concern for other species simply because they’re cute? The same rules apply to all who are pure, regardless of their appearance. The right to choose begins before you do something that comes with a hefty consequence, not after.
steveflesher
Philip
Mel Maguire
Mark Ciavola
Comments
*clap clap clap*
Excellent points, mel. And very well said.
This is about plain English….you cannot say you support life and at the same time want to kill people.
This has nothing to do with “innocent babies” and “evil criminals”, this is about saying one thing and doing the opposite.
Simple.
Tom, it’s not that simple. If you want to simplify things that much, then call a spade a spade and admit when liberal politicians are wrong. Unless you really want to know what the definition of “is” is.
I think you still missed the point. It is, in fact, about the difference between free will and pure innocence. If everything were as simple as you say it is then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Mel,
I have always been pro-choice — imposing my moral beliefs on another person is not what I like to do, so I have remained pro-choice (with some serious restricitons). Your piece today has converted me. You are a phenominal writer! Keep up the great work! And…thank you!
I must be odd guy out. I am against the death penalty and pro-choice. As I have posted before I oppose the dealth penalty for a variety of reasons. I used to favor the death penalty until the Andrea Yates case. If any person deserves to die, she does.
“This is where a gaggle of people go, “waitaminit–you’re a lesbian! You’re supposed to be pro-choice!”
And I bet you get that from fellow gay/lesbian folks as much as from straight people.
I am a gay man. I am a conservative Republican. I am not a liberal. I also go to church every Sunday too.
Lately I am catching a ton of crap here in CA over the same sex marriage issue. While I favor same sex marriage, I oppose activist judges. I am glad we have same sex marriage in CA but I resent the heavy handed way it arrived.
In 2000 the people of CA voted to define marriage in CA as male/female. The remedy for that was another vote to overturn that law. The remedy is not running to the courts and searching for an activist judge who sees it your way.
This November we will vote on this issue again and I am sure the losing side will run to court in search for yet another pack of activist judges who see it their way.
To this I ask, whatever happened to the will of the people? Society is better when the people decide which direction they wish to go. Directions can and do change. Society is better off when society decides to change because society wants to not because a judge says it has to.
John in CA – you bring up an interesting point – and one that the left seems singularly unable to process. In the wonderful words of a good friend of mine – people are like Venn Diagrams.
My circle crosses with the Republicans on the issue of abortion and the GWoT. My circle sort of touches the Democrats on gay marriage (although I rather line up with you on it, it sounds like). And my circle is to the right of both parties when it comes to the hideous issues they’ve got with crushing parents’ rights.
I’ve gotten far more crap from those on the left for where our beliefs diverge than I have from people on the right. It could just be my experience, but I also think that it has something to do with challenging authority and the detrimental effect that has on manners.
“I’ve gotten far more crap from those on the left for where our beliefs diverge than I have from people on the right. ”
AirForceWife
That does not surprise me. As conservatives, we know free speech applies to all points of view including points of view we don’t agree with. I can disagree with you on any issue but I won’t go over the line and label you a hate monger or lunatic. We simply agree to disagree.
Many liberals sadly have a double standard so eloquently stated by Ann Coulter: One set of rules for me, and a totally different set of rules for everyone else. Agree to disagree? Never! It’s more like see it my way or you are a hate mongering thug.
I have my own view on things like capital punishment and abortion. I know Mel for example disagrees with me on these issues. But, I think highly of her and her writings. She is very gifted. She has a point of view on many issues all worthy of consideration.
I don’t agree with everything I read here or how all of us react to it. But I mind my manners (well I try LOL) and I don’t think any less of any of you for having a differing view. We can agree to disagree. We can remain polite and civil.
“I have always been pro-choice — imposing my moral beliefs on another person is not what I like to do, so I have remained pro-choice (with some serious restricitons). Your piece today has converted me. ”
I am pro-choice and I have serious restrictions too. I don’t believe abortion is a form of birth control. I don’t buy the excuse I am too poor to have a child or I am not old enough to be a mom. If any of that applies then give the baby up for adoption. There are far too many parents who want children and can’t have them on their own.
Not all of us pro-choice people believe in abortion on demand in any and all situations. As humans we are obligated to take responsibility for the things we do and prevent trouble before it starts when we can. When it comes to making babies it is not hard to take responsibility around birth control.
I’m a pro-choice Republican and consider myself pretty conservative. I beleive Roe-vs-Wade is bad law and that it created a new constitutional right (privacy) out of whole cloth, but at the same time I think that the most basic right we have, that of ownership, has too apply to our bodies.
At the same time I agree with Mel and think that as soon as the baby is alive it too has rights. Unlike many people on both sides I think there is a compromise to be had, but first all the groups that make a good living polarizing this issue need to step aside.
“I beleive Roe-vs-Wade is bad law and that it created a new constitutional right (privacy) out of whole cloth, but at the same time I think that the most basic right we have, that of ownership, has too apply to our bodies. ”
The above is why activist judges are a bad thing. Before Roe vs. Wade, California and four other states already leagalized abortion on demand. This came out of the will of the people not by judicial heavy haded fiat.
In time other states may have chosen to legalize abortion. Those that chose to legalize it pre or post Roe may have decided to abolish it too. Just as those that would have chosen to keep abortion illegal may have gone the other direction.
Instead we have both sides entrenched on this issue. The more reasonable middle views get shouted down by forces on both sides of Roe.
The will of the people is not always a bad or dangerous thing. The simple idea that a majority of people want something doesn’t make what they want bad or oppressive towards any group of people.
I’ll sneak in a pro-life arguement for the death penalty.
The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below
Often, the death penalty dialogue gravitates to the subject of innocents at risk of execution. Seldom is a more common problem reviewed. That is, how innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.
To state the blatantly clear, living murderers, in prison, after release or escape, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.
Although an obvious truism, it is surprising how often folks overlook the enhanced incapacitation benefits of the death penalty over incarceration.
No knowledgeable and honest party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law.
Therefore, actual innocents are more likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment and more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.
That is. logically, conclusive.
16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence.
A surprise? No.
Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.
Some believe that all studies with contrary findings negate those 16 studies. They don’t. Studies which don’t find for deterrence don’t say no one is deterred, but that they couldn’t measure those deterred.
What prospect of a negative outcome doesn’t deter some? There isn’t one . . . although committed anti death penalty folk may say the death penalty is the only one.
However, the premier anti death penalty scholar accepts it as a given that the death penalty is a deterrent, but does not believe it to be a greater deterrent than a life sentence. Yet, the evidence is compelling and un refuted that death is feared more than life.
Some death penalty opponents argue against death penalty deterrence, stating that it’s a harsher penalty to be locked up without any possibility of getting out.
Reality paints a very different picture.
What percentage of capital murderers seek a plea bargain to a death sentence? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.
What percentage of convicted capital murderers argue for execution in the penalty phase of their capital trial? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.
What percentage of death row inmates waive their appeals and speed up the execution process? Nearly zero. They prefer long term imprisonment.
This is not, even remotely, in dispute.
Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.
Furthermore, history tells us that lifers have many ways to get out: Pardon, commutation, escape, clerical error, change in the law, etc.
In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it, some have chosen to spare murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives.
Furthermore, possibly we have sentenced 20-25 actually innocent people to death since 1973, or 0.3% of those so sentenced. Those have all been released upon post conviction review. The anti death penalty claims, that the numbers are significantly higher, are a fraud, easily discoverable by fact checking.
6 inmates have been released from death row because of DNA evidence. An additional 9 were released from prison, because of DNA exclusion, who had previously been sentenced to death.
The innocents deception of death penalty opponents has been getting exposure for many years. Even the behemoth of anti death penalty newspapers, The New York Times, has recognized that deception.
To be sure, 30 or 40 categorically innocent people have been released from death row . . . (1) This when death penalty opponents were claiming the release of 119 “innocents” from death row. Death penalty opponents never required actual innocence in order for cases to be added to their “exonerated” or “innocents” list. They simply invented their own definitions for exonerated and innocent and deceptively shoe horned large numbers of inmates into those definitions – something easily discovered with fact checking.
There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.
If we accept that the best predictor of future performance is past performance, we can reasonable conclude that the DNA cases will be excluded prior to trial, and that for the next 8000 death sentences, that we will experience a 99.8% accuracy rate in actual guilt convictions. This improved accuracy rate does not include the many additional safeguards that have been added to the system, over and above DNA testing.
Of all the government programs in the world, that put innocents at risk, is there one with a safer record and with greater protections than the US death penalty?
Unlikely.
Full report -All Innocence Issues: The Death Penalty, upon request.
Full report – The Death Penalty as a Deterrent, upon request
(1) The Death of Innocents: A Reasonable Doubt,
New York Times Book Review, p 29, 1/23/05, Adam Liptak,
national legal correspondent for The NY Times
copyright 2007-2008, Dudley Sharp
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS, VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O’Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
Dudley Sharp fails to mention that a thorough review of literature shows no indication that the Death Penalty has a deterrent effect. He also fails to acknowledge that those on Death Row are not the worst of the worst. Both of these would harm his diatribe.
Actually, SHE has gone over the numbers, and there is in fact plenty of evidence that the death penalty does have a deterrant effect. The numbers are available from the Department of Justice.
And if you have some solid proof that those on death row are NOT the worst of the worst, by all means, enlighten us. I used to be an officer and I spent time working both in gen pop and SMU. I am speaking from experience.