Supreme Court to Hear Case on Constitutionality of Lethal Injection:
There's been an effective moratorium on executions since a court held that the potassium chloride -- used to stop the inmate's heart after he's been anesthetized and paralyzed -- is far too painful. The so-far successful argument against using this drug on ciminals is "if the intended dose of thiopental [to anesthetize the condemned prisoner] is not injected successfully, or does not bring about general anesthesia, the inmate will experience both the terror and agony of conscious suffocation and the excruciating pain caused by the potassium, but will appear peaceful and unconscious to observers."
Most late term abortionists use this same drug, potassium chloride, to perform the injection that kills a fetus whose only crime is to be alive at what his mother considers a bad time, or perhaps whose crime is that she has a disability. The fetuses in question are old enough that if they were outside the uterus, they'd be in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, in an incubator, being provided with care and comfort. That's why they're given the lethal injection in the first place: to make sure that they come out dead, lest the mother be stuck with a live baby in a NICU when she paid good money for a dead fetus in a pathology bucket. Because mom's choice is death, not life, these babies get a death considered too cruel for a man who chose to kill, who had a battery of attorneys appealing his case, who had due process for a decade or more.
Where's the effective moratorium against this cruel and unusual practice?
We're told that the death penalty is necessary for fetuses because of the distress their existence causes their mothers. Why does the distress of one woman trump the child's life, when the distress of all the families and friends of all the victims does not trump the murderer's life?
Prolifers are pretty effectively split on the death penalty. Personally, you could either describe me as "opposed except in certain specific instances" or "favoring but only in certain specific instances". I think it should be a last resort used only if the criminal in question chooses to remain a threat to other people's lives even when incarcerated, either by remaining violent, by being an escape risk, or by being violent toward others while in prison.
I can understand total opposition to the death penalty, though I can only really respect the total opposition when it comes from a "seamless garment" prolifer.
For anybody to look at somebody who cold-bloodedly slaughters his fellow human beings and say that he is entitled to a million times more compassion than a disabled child is staggering.
If it's too cruel for a murderer, why is it "compassionate" to do it to a child?
If society has no right to kill predators who threaten the lives of innocent citizens, why does anybody have the right to demand the death of a child whose only crime is to be disabled or to be the son or dauther of a mother who decides she doesn't want to parent right now?
How can anybody justify that double standard, where what's a public service when you do it to a baby is a hideous outrage against humanity when you do it to somebody who makes a habit of taking other people's lives?
To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.