Pro-Lifers and the Death Penalty
— Posted by Elizabeth (May 16, 2010 at 11:57 am)
One of GFL’s readers recently raised a question about the Pro-Life view on the issue of the death penalty.
While the Pro-Life movement includes issues such as abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research, it does not specifically address the death penalty.
In reality, the issues of abortion and the death penalty operate on completely different grounds. Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being under the belief that they are valueless and have no personhood. The death penalty punishes a criminal by taking the most valuable and important thing they have – their life.
That being said, however, there is no reason why the views held by the Pro-Life movement cannot be carried over in order to reach a decision as to the morality of the death penalty.
The most basic point to remember is that all human life has inherent and intrinsic value. So really… it’s hard to justify killing anyone, not matter what the circumstances are.
In keeping with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the state may morally use the death penalty ONLY if there is no other possible way of protecting human lives from the unjust aggressor. If sufficient means such as life-imprisonment exist, they should be used instead of capital punishment.
To quote from the Catechism directly,
“The cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”
Years ago, before the advent of technology, the death penalty was needed to keep dangerous criminals at bay. Nowadays, with the exception of some third-world countries, there is no need for the death penalty to protect society.
Because of the security of our modern prisons and life sentences, the death penalty does not accomplish anything other than revenge. Even if the criminal deserves to die, are we not stooping to his level, by resorting to the inhumane? Killing a criminal will not bring the victim back to life. No “justice” is accomplished.
And what about the innocent people mistakenly sentenced and put to death? Where is the justice for them? Even if one innocent person were to be wrongfully executed, I believe that that is one too many.
It therefore follows, that anyone who is pro-life should oppose the use of the death penalty. Pro-Life means Pro-Life. Life begins at conception and ends with natural death.
This entry is filed under Culture Wars, Law & Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Christina says:
“Nowadays, with the exception of some third-world countries, there is no need for the death penalty to protect society.”
Ask anybody who was murdered by an escaped inmate, or who has been murdered in prison (like Jeffrey Dahmer). Only you can’t; they’re dead.
Some people remain a risk to others even if incarcerated. Either they’re a risk to other inmates/prison staff, they’re an escape risk, or they have the connections to order “hits” while incarcerated. These people choose to be so dangerous that we have no choice but to execute them. Otherwise we are saying that the killer’s life is of greater value than the lives of his victims.
Comment posted May 16th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Pansy Moss says:
Amen! My thoughts exactly, Elizabeth!
Comment posted May 16th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Rebecca says:
Thank you Elizabeth, a well written piece. I agree with all the points you have made regarding the death penalty. Perhaps the most extreme extent the state should ever go to is making life conditions for some people ‘untenable’ and allowing them to make their own choice in regard to their circumstances, but I’m uncomfortable with even that. In regards to life beginning at conception however, you are wrong.
Comment posted May 16th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Dan Gura says:
Elizabeth,
Do you forget the conversation Jesus had while nailed to the cross?
Luke 23:39-43
[39] One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!”
[40] But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? [41] We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”
[42] Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
[43] Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”
You will note that Jesus did not set the man free…in this world that is. He respected Roman law and allowed the criminal’s crucifixion to continue…he allowed the death sentence to be carried out for a guilty man. Why should we do any the less.
Comment posted May 16th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Jayson says:
Elizabeth, thanks for your article, you make a lot of good points.
Dan Gura, I was reading your comment and feel that that passage you quoted doesn’t necessarily support the death penalty.
Yes, Jesus allowed the criminal to be put to death, but in that time and culture, that was the only way people dealed with criminals – by killing them. Obviously, things have changed a lot since then.
Looking at your last sentence, we aren’t called to do less… we’re called to do MORE. Obviously, you would know that Jesus calls us to FORGIVE people, and love our enemies. It’s harder to love someone than to kill them, but that’s what Jesus calls us to do.
God Bless
Comment posted May 16th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Rebecca says:
At the risk of sounding snide, I wonder if Christina is a member of the NRA?
‘…but in that time and culture…..things have changed a lot since then’ – should we not contemplate this in regard to so many thoughts, opinions and beliefs that we may hold?
Comment posted May 16th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
John says:
Rebecca said: “In regards to life beginning at conception however, you are wrong.”
Rebecca—In that case, can you point us to a scientific source indicating that life begins at some point other than conception?
It’s an accepted fact of biology that life begins at conception, as neurobiologist Dr. Maureen Condic explains here [PDF]. Even many intellectually honest pro-choice individuals acknowledge this.
Comment posted May 18th, 2010 at 9:04 am
Rebecca says:
No John, its an argued case of biology, not an accepted one.
Despite the best scientific descriptors it comes down to a matter of belief.
In my case, life begins when it can breath of its own accord, until then it is a potential life.
Do look down with disdain on someone who has a miscarriage?
Now that science can pretty much create babies without the traditional sperm/egg reaction, does that mean that every single sperm and every single egg needs to be rescued? Did you know that ‘pre-cum’ (sorry!) contains sperm? Should this be salvaged?
Comment posted May 18th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Rebecca says:
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
Comment posted May 19th, 2010 at 1:17 am
John says:
Rebecca said: “No John, its an argued case of biology, not an accepted one.”
If arguing that life begins at conception is just one argument among many offered by scientists, then I once again ask you to point us to a scientific source that indicates that life begins at some point other than conception.
Rebecca said: “Despite the best scientific descriptors it comes down to a matter of belief.
In my case, life begins when it can breath of its own accord, until then it is a potential life.”
You realize, of course, that your definition of when life begins is completely arbitrary.
Princeton Professor Peter Singer, for example, believes that since newborns lack what he considers to be the essential characteristics of human personhood, that they cannot be said to be considered fully alive, and that killing them is in no way equivalent to killing a person.
Why should we accept your definition of when life begins over Peter Singer’s?
I would also be curious to know: If, in your view, breathing on one’s own is the point at which one’s life begins, would it be morally acceptable to kill a newborn baby before he/she takes his/her first breath?
Rebecca said: “Do look down with disdain on someone who has a miscarriage?”
Do I look with disdain on parents whose children died in a tragic car accident? Do I look with disdain on parents whose children died from drowning? Do I look with disdain on parents whose children died from cancer? Answer any of these questions, and you’ll have the answer to yours.
Comment posted May 19th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Rebecca says:
John, I think you answered your own question – Peter Singer. We could both scratch around for significant periods of time trying to outdo each other with lists of eminent scientists with different interpretations of when life begins, and that’s the point I was making.
You have your belief and I have mine. There is nothing which makes one more valid than the other. Therefore, if I don’t intend to force anyone to have an abortion, what gives you the right to force someone not to?
Your birth scenario is semantics, no less than my question regarding lost eggs and sperm. Your definition of when life begins is no more arbitrary than mine.
Since you believe that life begins at conception, I just thought I’d check to what extent you hold that belief in thrall in regards to surrounding events and conditions. You have answered.
Comment posted May 19th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Elaine says:
Rebecca,
In regards to life supposedly beginning after an individual’s first breath, science defines a being to be living if it is capable of growth, reproduction and metabolism. Growth begins in the embryo 8-10 days after fertilization. The fetus’s heart begins to beat after 21 days, and brain waves are detected around the sixth week. How can you deny these facts? If the embryo/fetus is not alive, what is it? A pregnant woman is not carrying a dead child.
Comment posted May 19th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Rebecca says:
Elaine, it is still a matter of conjecture. You have cited one definition.
A fetus is not self-capable life. It is a potential life.
Comment posted May 19th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Elaine says:
“Potential life”… you really would argue that? A being is either alive or not. As a fetus is growing, moving, pumping blood, kicking, and swallowing, it clearly is not dead or ‘non-living’.
Comment posted May 20th, 2010 at 11:49 am
John says:
Rebecca said: “John, I think you answered your own question – Peter Singer. We could both scratch around for significant periods of time trying to outdo each other with lists of eminent scientists with different interpretations of when life begins, and that’s the point I was making.”
Peter Singer is a philosopher, not a scientist.
His argument for why abortion is morally acceptable is not based on embryology, but on whether one possesses “rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness”, which he considers the essential characteristics of personhood. Yet what is it about these particular characteristics that makes them essential? If one were to lose them, would one therefore forfeit his/her humanity?
Or, if one were to go by your definition of when life begins, what if one were to lose the ability to breathe on one’s own (such as someone who has an iron lung)? Have such persons forfeited their humanity?
This is hardly a semantic question. On the contrary, it’s a rather crucial one.
Rebecca said: “You have your belief and I have mine. There is nothing which makes one more valid than the other. Therefore, if I don’t intend to force anyone to have an abortion, what gives you the right to force someone not to?
Your birth scenario is semantics, no less than my question regarding lost eggs and sperm. Your definition of when life begins is no more arbitrary than mine.
Since you believe that life begins at conception, I just thought I’d check to what extent you hold that belief in thrall in regards to surrounding events and conditions. You have answered.”
Saying that life begins at conception is most definitely not arbitrary. This excerpt from an article (that includes some remarks by Maureen Condic, whom I referred to a few comments earlier) explains why — and it also addresses the earlier question you posed regarding eggs and sperm by pointing out how radically different an embryo is compared to an individual egg or sperm:
The key point here is the first sentence of the last paragraph: From conception forward, human embryos clearly function as whole organisms.
This gets at the fundamental question that the debate over abortion comes down to:
What is the unborn?
If the unborn (embryos, fetuses, etc.) are not human beings, then abortion is really no different than having a tooth pulled, and there’s no reason why it should not be legal.
But if the unborn are human beings, then abortion is murder, and it should not be legal, because they have just as much right to live as you or me.
And since unborn human embryos/fetuses are the offspring of human parents, have human DNA, and function as genetically distinct organisms, it’s abundantly clear that they are human beings.
One more thing, Rebecca — I plan to address your question about “what gives you the right to force someone not to [have an abortion]?” in an upcoming blog post.
Comment posted May 20th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Rebecca says:
John, Maureen Condic has a slight ‘influence’ which bears on her conclusions. Irving and Kischer also question her ability to specialize in this area.
There is really no need for you to justify your position. I accept that that is what you believe and that you will live your own life accordingly.
That, however, is not the case for other people. I will be quite interested to read your post regarding ‘…what gives you the right…’
Comment posted May 20th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
John says:
Rebecca said: “John, Maureen Condic has a slight ‘influence’ which bears on her conclusions. Irving and Kischer also question her ability to specialize in this area.”
Rebecca,
It’s interesting that you mention Drs. Irving and Kischer, as both of them are strongly opposed to abortion. Obviously, while they have their disagreements with Dr. Condic, essentially, all three are “on the same team,” as they are all strongly pro-life.
Here is a page that highlights some of their disagreements, and here is a third-party analysis that seems to me to be pretty balanced.
Comment posted May 21st, 2010 at 9:51 am
Rebecca says:
John, Drs. Irving and Kischer also come to the table with their own agenda. There is disagreement even amongst those who state that life begins at conception. So the broader debate has even wider differences of opinion.
It will be enlightening to read what justifications you are able to elucidate in your forthcoming article.
Comment posted May 21st, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Generations for Life » Blog Archive » “What Gives You the Right…?” says:
[...] one discussion thread on Elizabeth’s recent post on Pro-Lifers and the Death Penalty, one commenter, Rebecca, wrote the following in the context of arguing the “pro-choice” [...]
Comment posted May 27th, 2010 at 10:23 am