This is probably more of a pit thread, but I’ll put it in here anyway and just watch the ‘F’ word.
Does anybody else find it the height of political pandering and human hypocrisy that the same president who upheld 150 death sentences (several on highly debatable evidence) while governor of Texas and who daily cries “Baghdad delendo est!” (or would if he hadn’t failed Latin) has proclaimed this coming Sunday “National Sanctity of Human Life Day” ?
In the first place, the title is only marginally less contrived than “The First Annual Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence”, in the second it might mean more if Bush had ever expressed any real concern on the plight of the uninsured or the child laborers in the American sweatshops overseas, and third- [ad hom] Is the man just freaking incapable of not looking like a damned Mongoloid when addressing a crowd? [/ad hom].
Of course, this isn’t meant to be seen as an “Abortion is bad” gesture (nudge nudge wink wink).
That said, I think there is a defensible distinction to be drawn between the death penalty, applied to persons guilty of heinous crimes, and abortion, applied to persons who have done no wrong.
I agree that anyone pushing the death penalty has a different take on sanctity of life than I do. But I don’t agree that it’s an egregious a hypocriscy as the OP suggests.
Please drop the term “Mongoloid” from your vocabulary, unless you are referring to residents of Ulan Bator. Persons born with Downs Syndrome do not deserve such a slanderous comparison.
Beyond that, pretty much ok except for perhaps being a bit too kindly. It is, as you suggest, a gesture to his socially retrograde constituency, who are intent on presenting thier bill for thier unstinting support without much return on thier investment. He is hoping to buy them off with empty gestures, as he is aware that he has no chance, none, of reversing 20 years of social/sexual change by diktat.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Bricker *
** I think there is a defensible distinction to be drawn between the death penalty, applied to persons guilty of heinous crimes, and abortion, applied to persons who have done no wrong.*
1- there are at least 13 people in Illinois who would disagree with the notion that all people on death row are guilty of heinous crimes.
2- Technically, the National Sanctity of Human Life Day isn’t a stance on abortion, don’tcha know (again, nudge nudge, wink wink).
And elucidator is quite correct: I tend to forget that “Mongoloid” began as a reference to those with Downs Syndrome and I would never compare them to Bush. I’ve worked with many Downs Syndrome kids that I’d have voted for over His Accidency, and I apologize sincerely to all of them.
I’m not crazy about using the phrase “Sanctity of Life” to mean wanting abortion to be made illegal. However, I do not have a problem with the alleged inconsistancy.
It’s not hypocrisy for Bush to be anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. Neither is it hypocrisy for those on this Board who are pro-choice and anti-death penalty. Death penalty and abortion are separate ethical issues.
Bush should just be honest and call it “National Sanctity Of Unborn-Life-But-Screw-You-Once-You’re-Out-Of-The-Uterus-And-Breathing Day”, which seems to be the intent.
I’m pro-choice and anti-death penalty.
I have no problem with the death penalty if the person’s guilt truly is beyond question (Timothy McVeigh, Jeffrey Dahmer [he got life, but still], Ted Bundy, etc.); I neither believe that it is a deterrent to crime nor that it is immoral to end the lives of people who have taken far more from society than they could ever possibly give. However, I’d have to classify myself as anti-death penalty because
1- too many people have been sentenced to death who were later proven to be innocent
2- too many people receive incredibly inept or underfunded representation
3- the death penalty is so inequitably distributed (few people who can afford quality representation will ever get the needle)
So while I’m not bothered by the moral ramifications of taking the life of a murderer, the “where there’s life there’s hope” factor would keep me from ever serving on a jury where the DP is an option.
My views on abortion are probably most closely related to those of Reform Judaism. I think that every first trimester fetus is a potential human and as such its killing should not be a casual decision, but neither is it a complete human being.
And I believe that for every drop of rain, a flower grows, though if it’s acid rain it’ll probably be all messed up.
If he’s so into sanctity of life, he might think about freeing up some of that family planning money, maybe help a few million children with AIDS. (Wait they’re, like AFRICAN or something, right? Never mind…)
And one person in Virginia - namely me - who would also disagree with that proposition. That’s why I specified that I was discussing the death penalty as it is applied to persons guilty of heinous crimes.
It is beyond cavil that the death penalty applied to persons innocent of such crimes is an injustice.
The “13” was specifically a reference to the death row inmates recently exonerated by DNA evidence (or, as Ann Coulter calls DNA evidence, a worthless waste of the court’s time).
I pretty much agree with the OP, and want to add the death of innocent civilians in Afghanistan should weigh heavily on Duyba’s consciousness - but apparently it isn’t.
Death penalty opponents have this exactly wrong. The fact that 13 inmates were released due to DNA evidence is an argument in favor of the death penalty. The development of this new technique means there will be fewer erronious convictions.
