Pro-lifer hypocrisy a liberal myth
By Chad Phillips
MTW contributing writer
Back in June we had a bit of a tussle in the forum over a mock Right to Life Status Rejection Letter "addressed" to Congressman Baron Hill.
Diego, our resident troll here at MTW was at the center of the controversy and as part of his "critique" of the pro-life position, he pulled out that well worn and over used liberal epithet: hypocrite.
The gist of Diego's hypocrisy assertion centers on the fact that many, if not the vast majority of pro-lifers support providing for the "common defense" (as outlined in the Constitution) and capital punishment. His critique takes the form of a question: How can you be pro-life if you support war and/or capital punishment?
Pro-lifers who support capital punishment and providing for the common defense aren't being inconsistent (hypocritical) because to be pro-life means to protect the innocent. When we support a war which defends our homeland we are doing just that. Similarly, when we support capital punishment we are protecting innocent lives.
Here’s why: (1) Both measures ensure the public or national enemy will not continue imposing violent crime on innocent persons because such an entity will no longer be among the living, and (2) They act as an effective deterrent for those who are considering committing such crimes in the future. Since the sum of these effects are that innocent persons are protected (in this case, the law abiding citizen) through accountability after the fact, and coercion before the fact, capital punishment and common defense are, therefore, consistent with the pro-life view.
In addition, the pro-life view holds that it is permissible to take human life in self-defense or in the defense of another human being. Since the State is composed of citizens, whom it has a vested interest in protecting, it is entirely appropriate that the State act in the defense of its law abiding citizens through its use of capital punishment and common defense.
This is stupid, its pure coincidence that the murder rates are highest when excecution rates are lowest. do you really think, at the heat of the moment, when you are so angry at someone you will stop to think that about the statistics.
Great Hen,
Is that the extent of your “argument,”: “This is stupid …” and chocking stats up to “coincidence …”? You’ll have to do better than that if you want be taken seriously around here. These are assertions without substantiation. The plain and simple fact is that the stats may very well be coincidental, but this is so improbable so as to make it virtually an impossibility. The chart shows one piece of the overall trend compiled over several decades, a trend which is consistent. Coincidence can’t reasonably account for this repeated pattern. If this were only a one time, or infrequent occurrence, isolated from other trends which refuted it, you’d have a case. But the data shows a pattern which is pervasive. Mark that as redundant and, therefore, consistent.