Sunday, January 22, 2006

National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2006


President Bush has proclaimed today the National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2006 . In a saner world, this would not even be controversial. One of the foundations of our republic is the inalienable right to life. Proctecting the unborn and the helpless should be a basic function of our government. The advancement of science is only going to make issues dealing with the sanctity of life more difficult the longer we put them off. The most valuable and unique resource in the universe is each individual life, even more so for those of us who do not believe in reincarnation or an afterlife.

(H/T: Michelle Malkin)

13 comments:

GS said...

"One of the foundations of our republic is the inalienable right to life."

Inalienable unless you get put on death row for a crime you didn't commit, right?

Gahrie said...

Nope. And note that the only way you can be sentenced to death is by infringing on somone else's right to life. It takes 20+ years to execute someone for a reason. Because the right to life is so basic, we provide those sentenced to death copious opportunities to prove their innocence, or overturn their sentences. And for the record, there is still no documented case of an innocent person being executed since the resumption of the death penalty.

GS said...

if the right to life can be taken away or "forfeited," by definition, it is not inalienable.

since 1973, 122 people in the US have been absolved of crimes they were sentenced to death for. if the right to life is inalienable, we shouldn't need a documented case of a wrongful execution to abolish the penalty. to paraphrase george bush, we ought to err on the side of life.

Gahrie said...

All rights come with responsibilities. For instance we have a right to liberty. When we use that right irresponsibly, we have given the government the power to limit that right, by putting us in prison. By living under our system of government and laws, you enter into a social contract. If you violate that contract, you have consequences. The most extreme consequence is the death penalty. That is why we impose it only in the most extreme cases. Man, and any institution created by man will never be perfect. I would argue that your fact: 122 people have been freed from death row, combined with my fact: no documented case of the execution of an innocent man, show that our system works. If isolation or exile was a viable option, I would be in favor of that instead. However the case of the recently executed Allen is instructive. While he was in jail serving a life sentence for murder, he caused the murder of three more people. What other sanction was available to society...three more life sentences? How many more people would he kill while serving four life sentences instead of one? The death penalty is necessary in order to protect society and punish evil.

GS said...

your interpretation of the meaning of the word "inalienable" is rather liberal.

Gahrie said...

Well, I 'll take my inconsistency of supporting both the death penalty and the Declaration of Independence over the leftist inconsistency of supporting abortion and opposing the death penalty, anyday.

GS said...

and it's because of that inconsistency that the "pro-life" movement is such a misnomer for most of its members.

Gahrie said...

True. but the more accurate "pro-innocent life" for my side, and "pro-guilty life" for your side just seems so clunky to me.

I guess I'm far more comfortable protecting innocent lives, and killing the guilty, than I would be in killing the innocent and protecting the guilty.

GS said...

anyone who is fully "pro-innocent life" would also be anti-war.

Gahrie said...

No. Some of us are mature enough to understand that war is sometimes regrettably necessary.

And those of us here in the US thus support spending billions of dollars, and risking American lives, to reduce the amount of innocents killed in war.

GS said...

i guess part of being pro-life is getting to rationalize away the inconsistencies with your position. must be a nice priviledge.

Gahrie said...

There are no inconsistencies. You keep leaving out the word innocent. I'm pro innocent life. Andf I repeat, even if my position was inconsistent, I would still prefer it to the left's position of killing babies and protecting murderers.

GS said...

here are the inconsistencies, as i've noted before:

a pro-life stance would not support the death penalty.

a pro-innocent life stance would not tolerate the killing of innocents in war.

you can come up with exceptions to those "rules" that you find palatable. there are those on the left who can do the same.