Someone left an intriguing comment on Elrod’s post this morning. This is the main line that caught my attention:
Republicans are so quick to kill convicts, and Democrats are so quick to kill babies.
I understand the inherent difference between taking the life of a criminal adult and that of a voiceless, unborn person (or person-to-be, depending on how you view one that has yet to technically enter the world). But how does killing a murderer make any sense, honestly? Sure, they won’t be killing anyone else. But most criminals simply aren’t deterred by the threat of the death penalty, which renders it more or less ineffective.
Some would argue that this isn’t a fair rationale; that you cannot compare abortion to the death penalty. I would argue otherwise.
At least one form of abortion seems to be universally (within the US, that is) accepted: if the carrying and/or birth of the fetus/child is going to put the life of the mother/carrier at risk. And even another form of abortion (“nature’s abortion,” I call it) happens quite regularly in the bodies of pregnant women and they don’t even realize it: miscarriage. Women’s bodies reject someday-babies on a fairly regular basis, I’ve recently discovered. And let’s take it one step further: what if a woman, knowing that she was pregnant, flew on a plane, and in the process “lost the baby” – would this make her a murderer, an abortionist, for knowingly endangering the fetus?
My main thought is this: when an issue if this subjective, this sketchy, this uncertain… why is it such a polarizing issue in the first place? I know it’s hard to believe, but other important issues exist in politics besides abortion and homosexuality (another post for another day).
2 responses so far ↓
Jared // 14 September, 2007 at 2:39 pm
I would argue that there are big differences between the death penalty, abortion and miscarriages. In general miscarriages are triggered by 2 events, 1 the baby won’t survive, 2 the mothers body feels it’s not good to have a baby. This is also true of getting pregnant, many women can’t get pregnant for any other reason they they are stressing about getting pregnant. The body feels it’s not a good time. This is a natural mechanism built into the body by God. If a woman knowingly puts herself in a situation where something could happen to the baby and it does, yes the woman should be held responsible for that child, same as if you leave your baby in a hot car.
Abortion on the other hand in most situations kills a child that would otherwise have survived. Killed for usually no other reason that it was a “mistake”. I believe the doctors and women should both be held responsible for the child’s death. Guess what if you don’t want to have kids then don’t have sex. If you feel you must have sex be prepared to deal with the side effects which may include making a child.
As for the death penalty I believe in it personally. One because the Bible teaches it, in the Old Testament God condones the death of people for certain crimes. In Genesis 9:6 he institutes capital punishment. In Romans 13:4 we read concerning authorities: For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Why do you think Paul used the image of a sword here? Or terminology like the agent of wrath? The biggest place that people say the New Testament speaks out against capital punishment are the sermon on the mount. Here I believe he talks more of our intent, our motive behind what we do. That we should not seek revenge. But revenge is different from justice. Justice that God has ordained.
Adam // 14 September, 2007 at 7:38 pm
I’ll second what Jared said.