Consistency in State Supported Killing
I knew that Jerry Springer would be up in arms as a result of the Stanley Williams being put to death in California—I just couldn’t predict how he intended to make his case. It was one I hadn’t heard before, but I appreciated the conversation that surrounded it. Springer pointed out that if the state was going to put people to death, it ought be broadcasted on public television, or the 12 o’clock news. He predicted his proposal would evoke an appalled reaction from his listeners, and he was correct. Droves called in to tell him what a sick idea it was. Springer, having well, was quick to point out that if the sight would be too revolting and inhumane, why support the government killing of criminals? After all, by paying taxes, one quite literally contributes to the killing of criminals in their state—a point Jerry didn’t make directly while I was listening, but the connection is there.
Frankly, I think his proposal makes some sense. Go ahead and air executions on television—and if the populace can’t stomach the scene, legislation will go through to stop the death penalty in states where people desire such legislation. And, while we’re at it—and as one of his callers aptly pointed out—let’s go ahead and air abortions on television.
As long as we’re talking about publicly funded killing projects, let’s go ahead and talk about abortion too. As long as Planned Parenthood and the ACLU receive tax breaks and subsidies to support abortion clinics, I think it’s only reasonable that I get to see an abortion or two. Some bang for my buck, as it were.
Of course, I’m being absurd, just as Jerry was earlier—an abortion is the last thing I want to see. Watching Nip/Tuck this evening presented the possibility that the female lead, Julia, would have an abortion. The story brought the audience into the clinic, the painful, awkward moments waiting on the couch in the lounge for the nurse to send her back.
Ultimately, the fictitious character couldn’t go through with it, but I could barely watch. I’ll admit that the jury for me is still out on the death penalty—I can certainly see better uses of public money and the criminal justice system—but I know that in my heart that the elective abortion of a healthy human fetus is wrong. I also know it’s wrong to kill a fetus when the biological father doesn’t want it to happen. It takes two adults to consent in creating life, why should only one be allowed to choose whether it lives or dies?
I’m all for equality—always have been and always will be. So then why don’t I get a choice in life? Why does my money have to support this? What can I do to stop it?
I knew that Jerry Springer would be up in arms as a result of the Stanley Williams being put to death in California—I just couldn’t predict how he intended to make his case. It was one I hadn’t heard before, but I appreciated the conversation that surrounded it. Springer pointed out that if the state was going to put people to death, it ought be broadcasted on public television, or the 12 o’clock news. He predicted his proposal would evoke an appalled reaction from his listeners, and he was correct. Droves called in to tell him what a sick idea it was. Springer, having well, was quick to point out that if the sight would be too revolting and inhumane, why support the government killing of criminals? After all, by paying taxes, one quite literally contributes to the killing of criminals in their state—a point Jerry didn’t make directly while I was listening, but the connection is there.
Frankly, I think his proposal makes some sense. Go ahead and air executions on television—and if the populace can’t stomach the scene, legislation will go through to stop the death penalty in states where people desire such legislation. And, while we’re at it—and as one of his callers aptly pointed out—let’s go ahead and air abortions on television.
As long as we’re talking about publicly funded killing projects, let’s go ahead and talk about abortion too. As long as Planned Parenthood and the ACLU receive tax breaks and subsidies to support abortion clinics, I think it’s only reasonable that I get to see an abortion or two. Some bang for my buck, as it were.
Of course, I’m being absurd, just as Jerry was earlier—an abortion is the last thing I want to see. Watching Nip/Tuck this evening presented the possibility that the female lead, Julia, would have an abortion. The story brought the audience into the clinic, the painful, awkward moments waiting on the couch in the lounge for the nurse to send her back.
Ultimately, the fictitious character couldn’t go through with it, but I could barely watch. I’ll admit that the jury for me is still out on the death penalty—I can certainly see better uses of public money and the criminal justice system—but I know that in my heart that the elective abortion of a healthy human fetus is wrong. I also know it’s wrong to kill a fetus when the biological father doesn’t want it to happen. It takes two adults to consent in creating life, why should only one be allowed to choose whether it lives or dies?
I’m all for equality—always have been and always will be. So then why don’t I get a choice in life? Why does my money have to support this? What can I do to stop it?
posted by Hickmania at
11:24 PM
5 Comments:
while springer might have been going for satire, i wouldn't be surprised if tomorrow's episode of his tv show aired an execuation. but there i go again w/ my biases.
i'm curious to see what kind of response your take on abortion will recieve. i won't comment yet, because you already know where i stand. but i will say that the stance which opposes abortion yet supports capital punishment is completely backwards and contradictory. The same goes for those who support abortion and decry the death penalty. and no issues in politics upsets me more than these two.
anyways, now that i live off campus, i'm glad there's now a place i can come to argue w/ you, hitchman. it also seems your forum will be updated much more frequently than mine... oh well.
By
clavin, at 1:33 AM
I would say that the debate between abortion and the death penalty is somewhat linked, but not entirely. I think supporting abortion and not the death penalty skirts the line, but there's one important distinction that I make. Namely, the debate around abortion for me centers around when conscious thought begins and whether or not that constitutes a killing. For me, the jury is still out as there hasn't been substantial evidence either way that I've seen. As such, I don't believe in legislating against it without any proof for either side. It's a big mistake to make if those are killings, but I don't believe strongly enough one way to support legislation, so I err on the side of freedom. I may indeed be wrong. I can tell you that if I had to make such a decision, it would not be an easy one.
With capital punishment, it's a lot clearer. Williams was alive a little over 24hrs ago and would've continued to be this way if not for the poison pumped into his veins. That was, simply put, a revenge killing. It may have been mediated by the state, but we've come no further than Hammurabi's Code almost 4,000 years ago. Williams wasn't a danger to anyone anymore, regardless of how you feel about his redemption. They weren't going to let him out, so he wasn't going to be able to commit any more crimes. Whatever he might've done inside prison should be able to be handled by the prison system.
So, capital punishment doesn't protect anyone. It has been shown repeatedly that it doesn't deter crime whatsoever, and any financial benefits are nil. Therefore, I ask, what purpose does it serve? A revenge killing? Isn't part of the purpose of having a jury of impartial peers to avoid sentencing by the victims? If you speak with the families of the victims, you'll hear how empty of an experience it is and how it doesn't solve anything. As such, I see no reason whatsoever why capital punishment exists in our society.
By
X, at 4:43 AM
"Namely, the debate around abortion for me centers around when conscious thought begins and whether or not that constitutes a killing. . . . Williams was alive a little over 24hrs ago and would've continued to be this way if not for the poison pumped into his veins"
It is in the same regard that there is no question abortion is killing. I don't care if you believe a fetus is alive or not--if you let a healthy fetus continue developing, it's going to develop right into someone who will be alive and thinking and breathing the same way Williams was when he killed 4 people and contributed to the destruction of so many others. How is it not killing when you destroy that biological certainty? The argument that Williams has a better chance of living on a day to day basis than a fetus has for developing correctly doesn't hold for me.
Consistency is all I'm asking for. If one of them is clearly killing, and clearly wrong, we shouldn't be doing either.
By
Hickmania, at 7:28 AM
keith, it feels like you're concluding that since we don't have a definite timetable for the starting point of life, that we should keep to the status quo until the mess gets figured out.
but legislation was made 30 years ago to allow abortions without the evidence that conscious thought did not exist. in this regard, i don't buy the argument that we should continue to allow it until we know better. i see this as an issue of freedom as much as i see my ability to stab a man in the back of the head w/ a pair of scissors as an issue of freedom. i'd rather err on the side not aborting potential life. i admit that in this climate, that can be viewed as terribly restrictive after so many decades, but it is the more responsible alternative.
i know we never get anywhere w/ this discussion, but i had to say something...
By
clavin, at 7:49 AM
Oh man. The other day in the news we heard about the 1000th execution in the US but I ask you how many abortions have there been since it was "legalized"? I support neither except in the case where a woman's life is at stake. But the whole death penalty thing. Although some people are clearly guilty lets take for example the Weatherhead shooter a Mr. Halder, I do not support it because sooner or later someone innocent is going to die. Our justice system is not perfect and to let innocent man die is a terrible tragedy. Anyways I think if you wanna make a man suffer put him in solitary for the rest of his life, oh wait some may consider that torture...
By
Anonymous, at 12:19 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home