The latter is a matter of constitutional rights. Like it or not, a fetus does not have any. A person becomes a citizen by virtue of being born or naturalized. There are over 100 things that can prevent a fetus (let alone a blastocyst or morula) from becoming a living human being and a citizen. The woman whose body carries it is already a citizen with rights. There is no other situation in which one citizen's rights are subordinated to another's. For example, you cannot be compelled to give a kidney to someone, even your own child. Biologically, a fetus is a mass of cells that becomes increasingly human-like over the course of its development. If laws existed (they don't) that defined a fertilized egg as a citizen, all sorts of complications ensue. The fact is that abortion is safer than bearing a child to term, and a woman who fears death or injury from pregnancy currently has the right to terminate the pregnancy. If we decide that the mass of cells has greater rights than the woman, she can be compelled to cease any medication that could harm the fetus, even if it risks her life (cancer drugs, heart medications, hormone therapies, even blood pressure drugs, antidepressants or insulin could threaten the fetus). There are more drugs contraindicated during pregnancy than there drugs that are not. Further, her dietary choices could be restricted. I do not believe these choices are my right, or society's, to make. But to take the moral point to that extreme, if medical choice is denied a pregnant woman and the fetus fails to thrive anyway, and the woman dies or suffers irreparable harm, how is HER suffering or death not then the fault of those who elevated the rights of a *potential* citizen above those of an *actual* one?

As for the purely speculative scenario I suggested, I'm not sure what the experience of a fetus is, but it is brief and apparently without memory or what we would consider conscious thought. It has no human experience, no sensory experience beyond the “whoosh whoosh” sound in utero, and as far as we know, no self-awareness. I don't believe a decision about abortion should be made lightly certainly, but in the case of wrongful execution, we are talking about a fully functioning citizen with rights, self awareness, fears and dreams and loved ones, snuffed out based on our belief that this citizen “deserves” to die. We better be damn sure of our evidence at the very least.

Your laying out the moral, intellectual and logical consistency of the Catholic position on life/death issues is something I have long respected about the Catholic Church, though I am not Catholic myself. To complete your thought, one can add euthanasia and physician assisted suicide to the list of Catholic consistency.

Here is where I see the difference. Abortion is decided on an individual basis. As such it is an individual moral choice. Capital punishment is not an individual moral decision; it is imposed by the state. My personal moral position is that I oppose capital punishment as well as euthanasia, abortion and physician assisted suicide. Where I differ is that I would not impose my personal views on others by outlawing, say, abortion. It should be presented as a moral argument on an individual basis not imposed as legislated morality by the government. In the case of the death penalty, that essentially moral decision is being imposed by the government and it is being imposed even on those of us who find it immoral and reprehensible (our tax dollars are being used to put people to death notwithstanding our moral revulsion at the practice). And, yes I do oppose public funding of abortion for the same reason, that those who find it reprehensible should not have to fund it.

Back to your earlier comment. That someone escapes from a mental institution is justification for tightening security measures to prevent escape. It is not justification for capital punishment. My view.

Btw, what do you have to say about life without parole as a rational alternative to the death penalty? And, would you comment on MSF's idea of a monastic service model of imprisonment without parole? I thought that was a very creative idea.

MSF: I appreciate your concern that governing not be punitive, and your concern that punishment simply creates more punishment. I can respect that, and yet, my observation, FWIW, is that rules are an essential component in any functioning society. Rules generally require some kind of sanctions be taken against those who fail to follow the rules. Call that punishment, if you like, because it is. This is, of course imposing something unwanted on those who do not like to follow rules, but I don't know that it automatically makes for a more violent society. Our complex society has a lot of rules. If you want to drive, you have to pass an examination and obtain a driver's license, pay the license fee for your car, and follow the traffic laws. Failure to comply with any of these results in sanctions, aka punishment if you are caught. Thus with murder. You intentionally deprived someone of his life, and yours is forfeit. You also are no longer a threat to society, because you are removed from society.

Patriarchal rules? Sorry, but I'm not buying that. My general anthropology courses were years ago, but I seem to recall that matriarchies also had rules, some of which were quite severe. ALL societies have rules and sanctions, i.e. laws and punishments to make them work. Failure to enforce them leads to problems. A few years back, anti World Trade Organization protests became a riot in Seattle. The city leaders, priding themselves on their progressive politics, collectively dithered, and worried about hurting people who were demolishing property in downtown Seattle, rather than enforcing the laws against riot and trespass, not to mention vandalism. Shortly afterward, similar protests were held in equally progressive Portland, Oregon and there was no property damage and no riot. Why? Because the city government and the police quietly met with a select few leaders of some of the groups supporting the protest and explained that Portland would recognize the protester's rights to peaceful assembly and protest, but would enforce the laws – all of the laws – and would prosecute rioters. Punishment, or the willingness to apply it, worked for Portland. Too bad Seattle didn't try it.

GD: I can respect your viewpoint. Theology isn't my suit either, but let me ask a return question: Let's take your scenario and change it to the unborn and unwanted fetus, seeing its development up to abortion. Any problems, or do you find that equally compelling? I ask, because I sincerely believe that abortion, like capital punishment is one of the sadly necessary acts that occurs in our imperfect world, because both sometimes really are the least bad choice. I have a number of Catholic friends, who adamantly oppose both abortion and capital punishment on religious grounds. I respect their beliefs and understand their theological reasoning. I cannot make the same theological claim, and I find that intellectually, I cannot view one form of taking a human life as socially acceptable, but the other repugnant. I think the self-professed conservative folks who argue strongly for capital punishment, but oppose abortion and their liberal counterparts who demand abortion for those who want it, but categorically oppose the death penalty are equally intellectually and morally mistaken. Both involve taking life, and are ugly. I can live with it, but prefer that both be kept to a minimum.

Welcome to you next life, Jazz, DLS and orsonbuggeigh. Disbelieve me if you want. Who knows what hell is or karma?

In your original comment, you said the death penalty was “mentioned” in the Constitution. I admit I took that perhaps too literally and checked to see if that phrase or the phrase “capital punishment” appeared in the document. They do not. Certainly there is allusion to capital punishment as in deprivation of life references in the Constitution.

Also true is that in early America, the death penalty was meted out for such heinous crimes as slapping an elder of the church, trading with “Indians” and denying the existence of God. Massachusetts was particularly infamous for it litany of offenses carrying the death penalty. Pennsylvania was the first state to do away with the death penalty except for murder, and Wisconsin was the first to outlaw it entirely.

What is more important is your misinterpretation of constitutional construction in the courts. There are actually two ways that a law can be found unconstitutional. 1. It can be unconstitutional on its face. You are correct that the death penalty has been determined by the Supreme Court not to be “facially” unconstitutional. 2. The other way a law can be found to be unconstitutional is “as applied”. That is the argument that continues to swirl around the death penalty. In other words, even though not facially unconstitutional, it may be unconstitutional as applied because of its unequal application particularly to minorities and the poor, but in other repsects as well. Over time, the SC has narrowed the death penalty without going all the way to full unconstitutionality…yet. Those narrowings, things found to be unconstitutional “as applied”, include, most recently, imposing a death sentence on the mentally ill, the mentally retarded and children under the age of 16.

Btw, you missed the most obvious allusion to capital punishment in the Constitution. You'll find it the Fifth Amendment reference to “capital or other infamous crime”. You're welcome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grbSQ6O6kbs

But it raises a question. If not as a “punishment”, “retribution” or “revenge” (all ugly parts of human nature), what is the basis for your support of the death penalty? It has been proven repeatedly not to be a deterrent, and death is certainly not rehabilitative. Wherefore your philosophical support of it?

Do you have a view on life without parole? Do you consider that a reasonable alternative to the State killing someone who has committed a heinous crime?

As for this sickening farce in Ohio, this is the fault of the ghouls who argue for so called humane execution by lethal injection. My vote is that all states and the federal government have a protocol which allows for several methods of execution, all of which should be low tech, and not require the assistance of a 'medically trained professional technician but not a doctor.'

My vote is to make hanging Plan A. For obese killers, or those who have had neck injuries such as previous attempts to slash their throat, then Plan B is a firing squad. Both should result in death of the condemned in much less than two hours, and both can be administered by any member of the law enforcement community.

As for the complaint that it may be unpleasant, please, spare me. Most murder victims do not get a nice pain free death. Many die agonizingly slowly.

Why do I support the death penalty? Because kindly feeling people refuse to be adult about punishment and public safety. Most European countries have so called life sentences that are not anything like life – the guy is paroled after 15 or 20 years. Or because they feel sorry for him dying in prison, like the Lockerbie bomber. Or, in the case of Washington State, the soft-hearted jurors demonstrated their soft-headed tenderness by allowing a man who murdered an elderly woman, and carefully attempted to hide her corpse to avoid detection to be decreed criminally insane. So what was the state Department of Social & Health Services thinking when they gave this guy and several other criminally insane folks a minimally supervised trip to the Spokane Interstate Fair? The man escaped and is still at large. He should have been kept inside an institution for the criminally insane for the rest of his life.

The state stopped performing lobotomies years ago, but I doubt if the procedure would make the personnel running DSHS any more incompetent and mindless than they already are.

Relating back to a prior comment that blacks murdering whites are more likely to get the death penalty than whites murdering blacks. The current death row figures are: blacks who murdered whites – 243 currently on death row. White who murdered blacks? 15 currently on death row. I correct my earlier comment. The differential is not 6 to 1, it is 16.2 to 1.

Death penalty imposition based on race of the victim. White victim 79%. Black victim 14%. Other 7%Same source.

My credibility has never been an issue, inasmuch as I have posted the truth, not fiction, instead.

To save you the trouble of looking up things again:

“nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life [...] nor be deprived of life [...] without due process of law” (Amendment V)

“nor shall any State deprive any person of life [...] without due process of law” (Amendment XIV)

You're welcome.

???

Surely you jest.

What do you think “deprived of life” means?

The words “death penalty do not appear in the constitution – at all, ever. Run a search of the document (I did). The word “death” appears four times, all in provisions having to do with the election and succession of the President or Vice President (Article II, and Amendments XII. XX and XXV. Run a search of the document (I did). The phrase “capital punishment” also does not appear in the Constitution. Run a search of the document (I did).

If you want to argue your opinion fine, but making up “facts” out of thin air doesn't give you much credibility.