My vote for “Death State”
December 28, 2007
Say it with me, MM, “one of these things is not like the other.”
19 Comments
Comments are closed.
Catholic perspectives on culture, society, and politics
Blog Associations
Site Counter
Ad Free
Dunno Alex – on those stats, of the states that report abortions, Texas is third….
True, but NY’s abortion rate is almost double that of Texas.
Very true, as well.
I’m willing to bet that neither state has jury trials to find the baby guilty before execution, either…
When I read the charts, my stomach nearly revolted. So many deaths of children! And we are “civilized?” Ugh!
In both states, killing is justified by law and recent tradition. In New York’s case, it is the choice of the masses. Where Texas is concerned, killing is enforced by the state. Either is a very sorry state, and neither is really worth crowing about.
The survey is incomplete: nothing on California.
As for the rates of abortion, we can probably posit that heavily urban areas outstrip other regions. Capital crimes most often occur in urban areas, too. Time to head for the hills?
Unless one, of course, agrees that the death penalty is either not as great an evil as abortion, or not evil at all unless applied unjustly.
Funny, I knew this would come up when I wrote the Texas post, so I did some pre-emptive fact-checking. It turns out thta Texas’s abortion rate is perfectly aligned with the national average, and that its contribution to the abortion total (8 percent) matches its population share. Not really something to brag about.
You won’t see me defening any abortions by any state. But if we’re talking about overall deaths, then my guess is that the “enlightened” state of New York wins hands down.
Take that Hillary Clinton!!!
((eye roll))
Except that for the death penalty, the state-level political authorities themselves are acting moral agents in a way that is not the case for abortion.
The death penalty is as important as abortion because the underlying rationality is the same. “Get rid of the ‘problem’ by killing it.”
Capital punishment and abortion are as American as apple pie.
MM — the state *is* acting as a moral agent in a jurisdiction like New York, for two reasons. First, abortions are publicly funded. Second, it is only because state law withdraws (as the United States Constitution is mistakenly thought to require) from unborn children (and, perhaps, neonates) the protection of its otherwise generally applicable homicide laws that these hundreds of thousands of abortions take place. The death penalty is carried out because the state says, “those who have been sentenced to death may, notwithstanding the homicide laws, be killed by state agents.” Abortions happen because the state says “those who are smaller than the rest of us may, notwithstanding the homicide laws, be killed by a doctor, so long as the mother does not object.”
The death penalty is also carried out upon those who have brought the sentence upon themselves through their own actions. The unborn have brought the penalty upon themselves simply by their existence.
The death penalty is also carried out upon those who have brought the sentence upon themselves through their own actions. The unborn have brought the penalty upon themselves simply by their existence.
The first sentence in your claim here glosses over the question of whether death sentences are in fact just. But regardless, you put your finger on the only difference between the two acts of killing that are abortion and the death penalty. One involves the killing of an innocent person, the other does not. Abortion is always unjust. The death penalty can, in theory, be unjust. But in practice, our Church is telling us, it is virtually never just, virtually always an evil. In both cases, the person in question is a human person made in the image and likeness of God and any language (such as Jonathan’s) that seems to downplay the humanity of a death row inmate must be rejected by Christians. It is easy for Catholics to sentimentally remind one another that fetuses are human beings made in the image and likeness of God. It is less easy for Catholics to affirm the same thing about a guilty person who seems to have lost all humanity. Opting for life, however, means doing just that.
Correction above:
“The death penalty can, in theory, be just.”
When you say “evil” in your paragraph, Michael, do you mean “grave evil” as it is used by the Church?
If not, how are you defining “evil”?
Jonathan,
If you mean my sentence “But in practice, our Church is telling us, it is virtually never just, virtually always an evil” then yes, I am using the term as the Church uses the term. Unjust killing is a grave evil. Actually, more specifically, unjust killing is intrinsically evil.
So, the Church’s reasoning runs thusly in your eyes:
1) Abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent, which is unjust. Therefore, abortion is an intrinsic evil.
2) The death penalty is a deliberate killing of a non-innocent, which may or may not be unjust. The criteria for determining the justice or injustice of the killing of the non-innocent depends on whether the individual may be adequately imprisoned to protect society from another of the individual’s acts (which is almost always killing another human being).
So, it would seem that the punishment of the non-innocent (death penalty versus non) depends greatly on the status of the facilities of the country in question. If so, it would seem to indicate that the level of punishment of a person does not depend soley on the person’s desert, but on the rest of society. I find this problematic.