next »

[eumaios]

I've been rereading Orwell's essay on Ghandi, in which Orwell, though he disagrees with some of Ghandi's premises, admires his consistency. True consistency--moral, philosophical, intellectual, or whatever--seems a very rare thing to me. I don't have it. Inconsistency seems to be one of the costs of having a heartbeat.

One cause of perceived inconsistency is our penchant for sharp dichotomies framed by stark labels. Those opposed to legal abortion call themselves "pro-life," implying that the other side is pro-death, which is silly and dishonest. People who want abortion to remain legal call themselves "pro-choice" and sometimes imply that the other side sees women as breeder animals who should have few choices in anything. That, too, is silly and dishonest. We can find similarly unproductive, foolish, and dishonest dichotomies and labels in any public controversy. We snarl; we rarely debate.

I think a person can be opposed to abortion and in favor of the death penalty. As Acrimone points out, deterrence is not the only justification for executing a criminal. One can believe in retribution; one can believe that some individuals are sufficiently evil to deserve to die; one can believe that a murderer or child raper forfeits all human rights. My grandfather used to say that hanging is sure as hell a deterrent to the guy we hang.

One can believe any of those things and still have reservations about abortion. Here's an example. I'm sure that an unfertilized ovum or a lone sperm cell is not a person (though I know that some people would argue that either is a potential person). I'm sure that a newborn infant is a person, even if the infant was born prematurely or was cut from its mother's body in an emergency C-section. I cannot find, to my own satisfaction, the line between not-person and person. Yes, I know that a week-old embryo can't survive outside the womb and that an eight-month-old fetus probably can. What I have never been able to escape--and I've been thinking about this for many years--is the thought that an abortion might be the taking of a life that has done no one any harm. That troubles me. A lot. Abortion seems to me a great moral risk. But I know that my own moral uneasiness and public policy are separate things, so I keep my mouth shut, at least in public. Perhaps, though, keeping my yap shut makes me a coward. Oy....

Now, someone might accuse me of inconsistency because "a life is a life, period." Well, no; I don't believe that. I think that hardly anyone does really, truly believe that every life has equal value to every other life. Sure, we might speak that way, but when the test comes we don't act that way. We defend our own. We shall not cry when Charles Manson eventually dies in his cage. If our military finds and kills bin Laden today, how many of us would feel sorry for him? Yet his is a life.

Consistency? Maybe Ghandi and a few other people have had it. I'd bet that truly consistent humans are somewhat less common than left-handed albino Mongolian dwarves.

[prytania3]

I am pro-choice and I'm okay with the death penalty. I think it is more expensive than life in prison, and I don't like the margin of error, but theoretically, I have no problem if a low-life who committed heinous crimes is fried.

I am also pro-assisted suicide.

I am, however, anti-gun because it makes no sense to buy or sell a product that's only real use is to kill people. There is much more of an uproar of second-hand smoke.

[husqvarna]

On the death penalty, the military, abortion:
The Epistle to the Romans talks about the government having the "power of the sword", basically they have the authority of violent enforcement.  That rubs me the wrong way, but I don't have any way to responsibly refute it.  So I accept that fact that governments have the authority to raise armies, execute convicts, etc.

That being said, there is nothing in the Bible that outlines HOW this authority should be used, or even WHETHER it should be used.  Only that the authority is present.

I can understand the need, in some instances, for convicts to be killed.  Having worked in prisons and talked with prisoners before, I'm confident that the United States has no need to implement it's authority to wield the sword for executions.  There are plenty of other reforms that could be enacted to improve the state of our justice system, and the continued practice of capital punishment is not one of them.  I think efforts would be best geared towards reintroducing ex-prisoners to society in a way that keeps them from falling back into the same practices that got them into prison in the first place.  The reason why our system was originally called “penitentiary”, after all, is because the whole process was focused around “penitence”.

The military appears to be necessary in order to protect a country as well, and as I said before I think the Christian scriptures speak clearly on the state's power to use force.  That being said, I can't manage to pull together any consistent biblical ethic that is not pacifist.  Does this mean that I need to join the Mennonites and just not participate in government because it is inevitably corrupt?  Perhaps.  I do respect them very much for their stand.  I haven't sorted out what I think about this.  Certainly I would not be ready to join the military or accept an involuntary call, but I also recognize that I am a part of the system even if I don't actively pick up my gun.  Sometimes it's just a matter of me accepting the fact that I don’t have a good solution and that I am very deeply bound to a sinful world.  (this is where being a theologian helps... often I feel there is no better way to explain a situation than reverting to theological aspects of it.)

As far as consistency with my pro-life position… I think that the issue of taking away the life of a child is closely linked with pacifism, and I would consider myself a pacifist who is honest enough to recognize that I don’t make a very good pacifist, and that no one can without engaging in some other immoral activity in the process (failing to protect one’s family, failing to keep the mother alive who is dying because of a pregnancy, failing to protect citizens adequately when someone who might be on death row is not, etc.).  The whole situation is an absolute mess and I don’t claim that anyone can be consistent.  I just try to be good, and discuss with others the best way for this to happen.

[husqvarna]

On the death penalty- after reading my post, it sounds like I'm saying death row inmates should be freed.  I'm certainly find with life in prison- I think convicts should be punished, and I think my point about "penitence" can be carried out inside bars just as well as out.  So I don't mean to be letting everyone free.

[husqvarna]

We shall not cry when Charles Manson eventually dies in his cage. If our military finds and kills bin Laden today, how many of us would feel sorry for him? Yet his is a life.

I remember attending a prayer service a few days after 9/11.  One thing about it struck me as odd, at least coming from the Church.  The person leading the prayer said something like, "I know it may be very hard for many of us to think about this, but it's important that we pray for those who did this to us as well.  They are also loved by God, and we must learn to pray for our enemies"... something like that.

What shocked me about this was that this might be "very hard for many of us".  Although I certainly recognized these "terrorists" as my "enemies" in some sense, it never occurred to me that people wouldn't want to pray for them as well.  Granted, if I were more directly affected by these enemies I might think differently.  But at least for those who had the blessing of space between themselves and that horrible tragedy, I was shocked that the need to pray for enemies wasn't immediately obvious.

[drsyn]

Can you be pro-life and ok with war?

[engineer_adrift]

How do you reconcile the right-to-life groups that bomb abortion clinics?

You can't.  But I wouldn't call them 'right to life' groups.  I call them murderers.  They certainly don't represent my point of view or my faith tradition.

Best wishes. 

[dr_stones]

How do you reconcile the right-to-life groups that bomb abortion clinics?

You can't.  But I wouldn't call them 'right to life' groups.  I call them murderers.  They certainly don't represent my point of view or my faith tradition.

Best wishes. 

They'll tell you that they are killing murderers so it doesn't matter.  Jesus would use pipe bombs to protect the innocent, I believe that's how one neighbor put it to me back in Louisiana.

[husqvarna]

Can you be pro-life and ok with war?

I imagine.  I think plenty of people have pointed out on this thread that consistency just isn't going to be reached, and I think that people are just trying to scrap together the best moral code that they can.  

And just because I can't bring myself to find any system except pacifism as adequate doesn't mean that I don't realize that WWII was a worthwhile conflict to have or that I don't think there's any good reason to go to war.  If I were to make the decision that war was the best option, however, I would do so knowing that it is the lesser of two evils, meaning that it was still evil, meaning that I would support the war and pray for mercy the whole way through because I know that such support is sinful of me.  

Maybe that doesn't count as pacifism, but I think saying that any support of war is an immoral decision is enough to allow me to use the label.

[engineer_adrift]

Can you be pro-life and ok with war?

Yes.  For example, if I am walking with my infant son and someone tries to kill him, I have a strict moral duty as his father to protect him, up to and including the use of deadly force if necessary.  I can turn my own cheek, but I must and will defend the innocent entrusted to my care.

If I am a policeman, the same principle and duty  applies, but to a larger group.  

If I am a soldier (and I was for 26 years), the same principle and duty applies, but for the nation.

Now, on the other hand, I think that strict reading of just war theory argues that the occasions when nations are justified in going to war are few and far between.  They do arise, however.  I still pray for peace, and if we are at war, for a quick and just conclusion.

BTW I have one son in the Army overseas (enlisted in Korea), and a second starting West Point this summer.  My third son wants to go to West Point, as well.  These issues strike home very close to me.  I have put my life (26 years) and encouraged my sons to put their lives on the line for what we believe; which is that this nation needs to have a capability to defend itself and if you want it done, you have a duty to share in the dirty work of doing it.  This is particularly true of those of us who have been greatly blessed by the benefits of birth, family, and education, as my family has been.

This nation also needs leadership that exercises that capability with great judgment and with a terrible sense of responsibility, restraint, and awe at the sacrifices being demanded of the noblest of our young men and women.  I pray for that often, as well.

Best wishes

[engineer_adrift]

How do you reconcile the right-to-life groups that bomb abortion clinics?

You can't.  But I wouldn't call them 'right to life' groups.  I call them murderers.  They certainly don't represent my point of view or my faith tradition.

Best wishes. 

They'll tell you that they are killing murderers so it doesn't matter.  Jesus would use pipe bombs to protect the innocent, I believe that's how one neighbor put it to me back in Louisiana.

I believe your neighbor is wrong.

Best wishes

[dr_stones]

How do you reconcile the right-to-life groups that bomb abortion clinics?

You can't.  But I wouldn't call them 'right to life' groups.  I call them murderers.  They certainly don't represent my point of view or my faith tradition.

Best wishes. 

They'll tell you that they are killing murderers so it doesn't matter.  Jesus would use pipe bombs to protect the innocent, I believe that's how one neighbor put it to me back in Louisiana.

I believe your neighbor is wrong.

Me too.  That is one reason why I now live in a different neighborhood, in a different state.

[eumaios]

Can you be pro-life and ok with war?

Yes.  For example, if I am walking with my infant son and someone tries to kill him, I have a strict moral duty as his father to protect him, up to and including the use of deadly force if necessary.  I can turn my own cheek, but I must and will defend the innocent entrusted to my care.

If I am a policeman, the same principle and duty  applies, but to a larger group.  

If I am a soldier (and I was for 26 years), the same principle and duty applies, but for the nation.

Now, on the other hand, I think that strict reading of just war theory argues that the occasions when nations are justified in going to war are few and far between.  They do arise, however.  I still pray for peace, and if we are at war, for a quick and just conclusion.

BTW I have one son in the Army overseas (enlisted in Korea), and a second starting West Point this summer.  My third son wants to go to West Point, as well.  These issues strike home very close to me.  I have put my life (26 years) and encouraged my sons to put their lives on the line for what we believe; which is that this nation needs to have a capability to defend itself and if you want it done, you have a duty to share in the dirty work of doing it.  This is particularly true of those of us who have been greatly blessed by the benefits of birth, family, and education, as my family has been.

This nation also needs leadership that exercises that capability with great judgment and with a terrible sense of responsibility, restraint, and awe at the sacrifices being demanded of the noblest of our young men and women.  I pray for that often, as well.

Best wishes

Noble words. Thank you.

[copper]

Slac_vap, you pose an interesting question.  I suspect that one general answer to your basic question is that anyone who holds nuanced moral positions will appear to be inconsistent when viewed by others, who probably focus on different nuances.  I know that some of my moral positions have been/are inconsistent, but I am untroubled by this since the inconsistencies appear in the fringes of nuance, and may be unresolveable.  I also think the notion that moral positions are usually felt rather than thought could go a long way to explaining perceived inconsistencies.

[larryc]

Defend my wildly exaggerated misrepresentation of your opinions or admit that you are wrong!