Convicted murderers or unborn children?

Convicted murderers or unborn children?

The Oregon Catholic Conference has decided that it can’t support a law that would provide protection for unborn children against violent crime because it might also expand the death penalty.

Once again, the legality of the death penalty is a prudential judgment, entailing a society’s view of justice and self-defense against murderers and rapists. But unborn children are absolutely innocent of any crime and should be protected by society. I’ve said before that I don’t think we need the death penalty in the US at this time, but I don’t agree on making legal protections for the unborn conditional on ending the death penalty. It’s just not right.

Written by
Domenico Bettinelli
3 comments
  • Maybe we can make the opposite deal.  We’ll agree to eliminate the death penalty if they’ll agree to eliminate abortion.

  • “We cannot defend life by taking life.” -McCarrick

    Sed contra: sometimes we are obligated to do so.  This is nothing but sentimental mush.

    Practically speaking, it should be possible to separate protecting unborn children from expanding the application of the death penalty so that the Conference will support the first more enthusiastically.

  • Hey JimC…I’d love to see that one come to pass….the trick is they use this argument but they really don’t believe it….if you could make that offer they’d go back on the agreement.

Archives

Categories

Categories