Does this mean you're pro-life now?

That's a tricky subject, but as I've always said, the matter, for me, boils down to whether a fetus is a person. I personally have no idea whether it is, and I don't really know how anyone could even attempt to give an answer to that question. The whole thing is way the fuck too complicated for me and, frankly, I don't want to have anything to do with the debate. The whole thing has become such a ridiculously polarizing issue that I don't even really enjoy talking about it in an abstract, philosophical sense.

So, there you go. My opinion is that I have no opinion.

hmm. i think that was your best post in a while; i agree with almost all of your sentiments

Hippy.

fxv once suggested that allowing capital punishment gives the government too much power, which could be abused. That always seemed like a good argument to me.

It seems like the empirical stuff is too murky for a non-expert to have an opinion. Different articles by people who seem respectable to a naive person reach different conclusions, and there doesn't seem to be anything conclusive.

Regarding the flawed legal system argument, I have always wondered what percentage of the 'innocent people' who are executed deserve to die for other reasons. For example, suppose some guy has assaulted and tried to kill 10 women, but he just happens to get the death penalty for a murder he didn't commit, and is convicted partly because of his past history. Am I supposed to feel bad about this guy being executed? (Set that 'sanctity of life' shit aside for the moment.) I would be fucking happy if that guy was executed. I want that guy dead so he can't hurt anyone even in prison, etc.

So, imagine that there have been 1000 'innocent' people executed, but 999 deserved to die anyway for other things they did. Then I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty. So this seems to matter. You might object, 'but what about the one innocent person?!' But no system is infallible, and innocent people will undoubtedly die because of their wrongful convictions regardless of whether there is capital punishment or not. (For example, some innocent people will wrongly be sent to prison where they will be killed by other inmates, or die of old age, regardless of whether there is capital punishment or not.) So, the question is whether having capital punishment makes this sort of unavoidable unfair stuff much worse than it otherwise would be. It might seem like it does, but that might just be because of selective reporting of a few cases, or because one state (Texas) seems to have a particularly fucked up system. (Suppose you found out that Texas and Illinois convict a lot of innocent people for rape; would that make you think that rape should carry a lighter sentence, or that the supreme court should pull some shit out of its ass?)

Regarding the 'no error rate is small enough' idea: do you think that bombing military targets in wartime can never be justified because there will always be some chance that an innocent person will be killed? This sort of thing makes me wonder what you mean by that 'inalienable right to life' stuff.

Suppose that you and I know for sure that a guy is guilty of some heinous crime. You don't feel like killing him, but I do, and I do. Are you saying that I've done something wrong? Why? I can see how someone might want to not participate in executions, but that's not the issue.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/24/grad.student.torture.ap/index.html

Now that you've given up on the goatee, are you turning hippy and going for dreadlocks?

Your stance on the abortion issue and the question of whether a fetus us a person is a real profile in courage.

You expound for two paragraphs about the worth of life, but can't wade into the abortion issue? Cancel my subscription!

Mr. Henin,
I think your point about how someone who did not commit the particular crime they're charged with but nonetheless deserves to die is, frankly, disturbing. First of all, the entire point of our legal system is that a man must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of what he's charged with before he can be punished. It's the State's job in criminal prosecutions to prove that the defendant committed a very specific set of acts. If the jury finds that he did, then we can sentence him. But what you're suggesting is that the legal system work more as some sort of bad-person detector. You seem to be ok with judges and juries judging a defendant's character rather than his actions, his history rather than any specific offense. I do that as a person all the time, but that hardly means that it's ok for our legal system to function that way. It is abhorrent to the fundamental principles of how everything is supposed to work in America to say that we might have gotten it wrong on this specific offense, but I'm sure he's guilty of some other crime we can't--and didn't try to--prove.

Moreover, I am shocked by the casual way in which you dismiss the very real possibility that even one completely innocent man would die. It's not enough to say that innocent men have died and that, even without the death penalty, innocent men will die because of their involvement with the justice system. All those things mean is that more innocent people have died. It's as if you're saying that so many innocent people will die, the few more the death penalty will add don't make much of a difference. But shouldn't our goal be to reduce the imperfections in our system--and therefore reduce the number of innocent people that die--to the greatest extent possible? We can't be perfect, but shouldn't we at least try to be as good as humanly possible?

As far as military bombing during war, that's a tricky question, but I'm not sure that it has anything to do with this debate. To a certain and unfortunate degree, civilians are going to die in war. That doesn't make it ok, but it's just a consequence of the fact that war is a messy, fucked-up thing. It doesn't necessarily involve a conscious choice and, unlike executions, it isn't really a matter of public policy.

If you kill someone, regardless of whether they've killed someone, you have absolutely done something wrong. The obvious objection, of course, is that I don't want to live in a country of vigilantes. There's a legal system for a reason, and you have no legal right to act as any person's judge, jury, and executioner. In the law, there are things called "affirmative defenses." Basically, an affirmative defense is where you say "yeah, ok, I did what you say I did, but there's some other circumstance that excuses my actions." So, for example, you might have killed someone, but it would be an affirmative defense to say that you acted in self-defense. What you're saying is basically that we should treat "but he killed someone" as an affirmative defense--you're not culpable for the murder you committed because you were killing a murderer.

From a legal standpoint, this is absurd. Again, the basis of our system is that someone cannot be punished until the system has found them guilty. What you're talking about is a "kill now, ask questions later" system that, frankly, would cause me to leave the country.

Moreover, in a country like ours that does have an established legal system that, though imperfect does get it right most of the time, why would it be acceptable for you to kill someone when you could have just as easily reported that person to the police? Your actions seem extremely unjustified then.

From a moral perspective, I have even more problems with what you're proposing. Your hypothetical assumes that we "know" that someone killed, which I take to mean that they did kill someone, that we have reason to believe that they did, and that we are correct in that belief. That's all very well and good, but where do you get the authority to judge and execute that person? It seems to me that neither you nor anyone else has that authority. To say differently is to say that every person in society has the power to kill every other person in society in a greatly expanded set of circumstances. That doesn't sit well with me at all.

And as for the comments you and Santi made about me being a hippy, that's just not cool. Plenty of people have come on here and called me fat and ugly and stupid and untalented and whatever else. But I will not abide being called a hippy.

Cato,
My stance on abortion is clear, even if it's not very concrete: if a fetus is a person, I'm opposed in most circumstances. If it's not, I'm cool with it. But I honestly believe that the question of when life starts is way the fuck over my head.

Still, if you really want to know more about what I think, I'll share.

I once heard a friend of mine, someone I respect, say that she wanted to put it in her living will that if she ever went into a permanent vegetative state while pregnant, she'd want them to pull the plug on her because she didn't want to be this machine keeping some strange, foreign object alive inside of her. That attitude, frankly, scared me. A fetus may or may not be alive, but it seemed incorrect to me to characterize it as a "strange" and "foreign" object. Fetuses are what they are, and biology has decided that it's really only women that have to deal with them. To call a fetus a foreign object seems analogous to me distrusting my sperm, which just seems freaky. Whatever else a fetus may be, if the process goes as it should, it will be a person (if it isn't already one). And that means that it's at least a little more than a parasite.

On the other hand, I don't easily discount a woman's right to self-determination. When and whether to have children is certainly a decision that should be up to the woman and, when accidents or mistakes get made, then it seems appropriate to allow a woman to do what she will with her own body.

But the biggest problem I have with that is that, in this day and age in this country, there is almost no excuse for consensual sex to lead to an unwanted pregnancy. I mean, that's not completely true because no contraceptive is completely effective, but of the many friends I've had that have found themselves accidentally pregnant, all of them were less than conscientious about birth control.

On the other hand, why should a woman--or a child, for that matter--be forced to live with one oversight forever? And, of course, contraception is unavailable to various people for various reasons.

My point here is that it's a very complicated issue and, more importantly, that if you think it's not a complicated issue, you should probably rethink the whole thing.

But the larger point I want to make is that someone's answer to the abortion question does not necessarily determine their answer to the death-penalty question. The death penalty involves interests--protection of the public, punishment of the offender, and deterrence--that are simply not in play in the abortion debate. Meanwhile, abortion involves questions of personal female autonomy and the beginnings of life which are not in play in the execution debate. Someone could reasonably put more weight on, for example, the issues of punishment and the preservation of innocent life and decide that the death penalty is justified but abortion is not.

So, yeah.

you rock Ismael!!!!

Well reasoned and well done, Ismael! I admire your ability to talk about one subject without leaping unfounded into another debate to support or refute an idea. Also, way to avoid being too cynical.

Ismael, everything you say is very reasonable, clear and well-stated. However, it seems somewhat problematic to think that it is *obviously* wrong to kill a terrible brutal killer because all life is sacred, but that it is probably ok--or at least a different issue--to adopt a military strategy in a just war that one knows will result in some innocent people being killed. I don't understand why you don't see a tension there.

Although I think your view on capital punishment is reasonable, I don't think that the arguments you provide are decisive. It was no part of the alternative view I was giving that legal practice should derive from a naive estimate of the consequences rather than procedural justice--it was no part of the alternative view that we should be willing to give up on the idea that the evidence must indicate beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty in order to find them guilty, or that we should give up on any other legal norms. Rather, I was pointing out that when you have a fallible 'reasonable doubt' standard--which you have to have in order to convict anyone, since there is always *some* remote possibility that they are innocent, consistent with the evidence--it is an obvious consequence that some innocent people will be convicted. So, it is an obvious consequence of your view and the alternative view that innocent people will be convicted. What I was suggesting is that in determining whether a punishment is ok, given our knowledge that some innocent people will undoubtedly be convicted, we should look at what the consequences and overall justice of having that punishment would be. And I don't think it is clear what to think about the death penalty from that (reasonable) point of view.

You say: "But shouldn't our goal be to reduce the imperfections in our system--and therefore reduce the number of innocent people that die--to the greatest extent possible?" It seems like that would have to be our *only* goal in order for your conclusion to follow. But although that should certainly be *a* goal, it shouldn't be our *only* goal. For example, if that was our only goal, we should adopt the infallible standard 'convict only if there is no logical possibility that the person is innocent, given the evidence', because only then could we ensure that no innocent people were convicted. But if we adopted that standard, we would never convict anyone, and so criminals would never be put away. So that shouldn't be our only goal. Another one of our goals is and should be to protect people from dangerous criminals.

I was also suggesting that, regardless of whether it is ok for the govt to execute people, it would be morally permissible for a suitably informed person to kill a terrible brutal murderer. (Think about the show Dexter--that's what I have in mind.) This independent point probably served to confuse the other issue. Sorry. I don't expect anyone to agree with this, but it seems obviously right to me--it seems obviously morally ok for me to kill some terrible criminal if I know for sure that they are guilty and, say, the state of new york has foolishly decided to free them.

Suppose you are faced with a choice: you have to either allow 2 very early embryos to be killed, or to allow 1 normal adult person to be killed. If you think the right choice would be to allow the 2 embryos to be killed, then it seems like you are committed to thinking that they have less moral status than a normal adult person. It seems like you can get a good estimate of how much moral status you really think the embryos have by thinking about how large the number of embryos would have to be to make you choose the embryos over the person.

"Regarding the flawed legal system argument, I have always wondered what percentage of the 'innocent people' who are executed deserve to die for other reasons."

The phrase "deserve to die" sticks in my mind on this one. The casual way we discuss life and death is frankly astounding to me. I find that one human being claiming the moral authority to decide that another human being deserves to die is jaw-dropping in its hubris. I fully support the idea that if someone is a confirmed murderer, rapist, or other form of predator, that we as a society have a right to remove that person from society indefinitely. I cannot, however, subscribe to the notion that any single one of us, or even the State as a whole, has a right to determine that a human being is not worthy of life.

And if you're basing your moral code on "Dexter," I hate to say it, but you're pretty fucked up. It's cool for one serial killer to kill another serial killer because the second serial killer is a "terrible person?" Um, no. Maybe it makes for good television, and that's fine. It is, after all, television. But let's be clear - in real life, there's nothing remotely acceptable about letting one killer murder another because the legal system lets them go, whether or not we know that the second killer is 100% guilty.

"Equal rights for everyone (accept bad people)" doesn't work. Someone already mentioned the possibility of government abuse. The legal system is designed to protect everyone, including those without money, power, or influence. Including those with views that are different from ours, those who don't believe what we believe, those that have different lifestyles from ours. If we decide that we have the moral authority to terminate the life of others because they are "terrible criminals," at what point do we have the right to terminate the people we don't like? We'd like to think we'll never reach that point, but honestly, it wouldn't take much. Maybe another bombing or two. The politics of pre-emption become suddenly acceptable. Even if someone hasn't killed yet, we have good intelligence that they will some day. Therefore, we have the right to kill them now to prevent that.

Feel free to call me a hippie, a hypocrite, or a straight-up hippo if you like.

Now I see the problem with my view: it depends on thinking that moral views should derive from TV shows. If I didn't think that, I don't know how else I could arrive at the ridiculous, horrible view that it is sometimes ok to kill a person who has ruined the lives of other people, and who is almost sure to ruin the lives of many more people unless I kill them.

I think your response is pathetic. "My stance on abortion is clear, even if it's not very concrete: if a fetus is a person, I'm opposed in most circumstances. If it's not, I'm cool with it."

Explain, if you would, how that is "clear." Your position is that you have two positions, and borders on the tautological. (If there are rain clouds tomorrow, then it may rain, then again, it may not.) Most of your arguments seem to share this common trait. Despite your protestations otherwise, you are being intellectually dishonest. I submit that your opinion on the death penalty necessarily informs the other, at least as far as you have formulated your argument. And, as I stated previously, you go on and on about the value of human life in your defense of the opposition to the death penalty. How could one value human life so much so as to object to the death penalty, and, at the same time, be potentially "cool" with the idea of abortion because you aren't sure when life begins?

You also add the concept of self-determination into the mix, which further clouds your positions. Suppose that everyone agrees that life begins at conception. Suppose further that we all agree on a woman's right to self-determination. Now what? How is your position "clear" at that point?
Finally, and perhaps least importantly, what does contraception have to do with any of this? You argue moral points as to the sanctity of life and our flawed legal system, but them complain that people may be having unprotected sex? I am shocked, shocked!!

The answer my friend, is blowin' in the wind.

Cato,
The only thing that might serve to make my position unclear is the fact that you are being purposely obtuse. Extremely so, even.

Let's take a close look at the statement which you propose as being analogous to mine and which you base your conclusion that my position is both clear and potentially tautological. You say "If there are rain clouds tomorrow, it may rain, then again, it may not." You are certainly correct that such a statement does not have much meaning--it just advances the possibility that given some condition, essentially anything might happen. If we were to rewrite your statement in logical terms, we might do so as follows: X->Yv-Y. You would certainly be correct in saying that such a statement is both unclear and tautological.

My position on abortion, however, is not analogous. My position is as follows: If a fetus is a person, then abortion is morally unacceptable. But, if a fetus is not a person, then abortion is morally acceptable. Translating this statement into logical notation, we arrive at this forumlation: (P->-A)&(-P->A), where P is "fetuses are people" and A is "abortion is morally acceptable." Although it's been some time since I manipulated symbolic logic, I'm fairly certain that the statement [X->Yv-Y][(P->A)&(-P->A)] is untrue and that, therefore, the two statements are not analogous.

But one doesn't need to engage in such contrived logic puzzles in order to see that you are incorrect. You might be unsatisfied with my position on the grounds that I don't pick a side, but it is incorrect to say that it is unclear. My statement is much more analogous to the following: If Mr. Vice already watered the plants today, then I won't. But if he didn't, then I will. If you asked me whether I was going to water the plants and that was my response, it would be foolish of you to respond that my answer was unclear, even though you wouldn't be able to say with much certainty whether I'd be watering the plants. At most, you'd be able to say that my future actions depended on some condition outside of my control. But that's neither unclear nor tautological--that sort of statement has lots of meaning in every day life.

I understand the conflict you see between my avowed valuation of human life and my potential acceptance of abortion. My response is to redirect you back to my positions on the death penalty and abortion. I oppose the death penalty because of the value I see in human life and because everyone subject to the death penalty is clearly human. But I would potentially accept abortion if it were somehow determined that fetuses were not human. In a world where a prisoner is a human but a fetus is not, I can clearly be opposed to the death penalty but supportive of abortion, assuming that the thing I value most is life.

In the hypothetical you posit--where life beings at conception and we also want to preserve self-determination--my position continues to be clear. I value a woman's right to self-determination--which is to say that it's not something I discount lightly or out of hand--but I nonetheless value another person's right to life more. So, given those facts, I would oppose abortion in most circumstances.

As far as contraception, I'm sorry for being unclear in my original comment. I'll try to clear it up a little now. One of the secondary reasons that I am less vehemently pro-choice than many of my friends is that I see very few reasons why accidental pregnancies should happen outside of very rare circumstances. A woman has a right to self-determination, but that doesn't mean that she and her partner don't have an obligation to be responsible on the front end. When I've made this argument in the past, I've been informed that some women--for, as I said, various social and religious reasons--don't have access to contraception, so it would be unfair to deny them access to abortion simply because they are denied the means to be responsible on the front end. That's all I meant there.

Anything else I can clear up for you?

Thanks for the offer of clarification. Despite your stirring defense of your own tautology, my point remains. Read your earlier posts. In your second post on the issue, you say that "my opinion is that I have no opinion". When challenged, you argue that your position on the issue is "clear" but "not concrete." You then ramble through a real stem-winder to more fully explicate your position. It's Clintonian in fluidity--"it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." You should run for office.

Seacrest out.

Cato,
This whole thing's gone on long enough. You're not making a point or even countering anything I've said. You're just standing by your original, absurd assertion.

You disagree with my opinion, and that's fine. But don't insist that I be clear and then refuse to acknowledge when I have been. If you have something constructive to say, say it.

Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

Perhaps my favorite rejoinder was "shut the fuck up". The charge that I was extremely, purposefully obtuse was a close second, but I have to give you style points for your mastery of profanity. Then again, the thought of being purposefully obtuse is appealing. When you throw in "extremely", it becomes much more so. I am really torn.

Despite your apparent misgivings, I enjoyed our exchanges. I am glad to see that you appreciate open and honest debate, so long as everyone agrees with you.

This has nothing to do with not enjoying our exchanges--I enjoyed them, also. Nor does it have anything to do with enjoying debate only when people agree with me. I enjoy being disagreed with, as a matter of fact. But, like I said, if you have a point, make it. Or if you honestly think that I am being unclear or in some way disingenuous, please point out specifically when and where I did that so that I might respond specifically or, if you are correct, admit that I was wrong.

It's not that I want you to shut the fuck up, it's that, if you're going to take the time to comment, give me something I can sink my teeth into or, at the very least, give me a good logical ass-kicking. Tired comparisons to Bill Clinton hardly count as either.