Does this theory also apply to immigration? And to capital punishment?
I don’t know, the thought of a 13 year old giving birth just pains me. I know they do it all the time, but I find this very sad. I’m not advocating abortion, but you guys, 13 year olds are tiny–having a baby hurts.
I’m glad I don’t have to make that decision.
How about to welfare? Universal health coverage?
Re-read your article, Geoff, wondering how Kaimi’s question applied. I often have to read something several times to begin to understand. Which accounts for the times when I make no sense whatsoever.
I don’t know about immigration and I am in favor of capitol punishment, but I’m not sure the judge was wrong in that case.
You, as a man, were looking at her raising the baby, which is a real consideration, and I think, a total impossibility, although I’ve seen girls try to do it. The babies born into these situations almost always become screwed up in some way.
But pregnancy is hard on a woman, and especially on a young girl. I know, I know, they do it in Africa. But that doesn’t mean they should.
Joseph Smith said, “that which is wrong in one circumstance, can be, and often is, right in another.”
Here’s an interesting story on the hypocrisy of the culture of life. Made me think.
Kaimi, I’m not sure what you mean about immigration, but if I were going to guess, you mean am I in favor of allowing immigrants whose lives are in danger of entering the U.S. And the answer is yes in some cases, without going off-topic. I am against the death penalty, so no “gotcha” moment for you there. Sam B, on welfare, I think churches and other private institutions are much better than the federal government at actually helping people stay alive and making sure that aid gets to the people it should get to. I’m in favor of free-market reforms in the health care industry that would bring better and cheaper health care to everybody.
Anne, we as a culture spend too much time looking at how “traumatic” it is for women to have babies (something that the Lord has created most of them to do) and too little time talking about how traumatic it is for them to use medical procedures to stop a pregancy. There are serious long-term feelings of guilt and remorse associated with such a decision. Look at the woman who was the “Roe” in Roe v. Wade. She spends all of her time now trying to get Roe v. Wade reversed because of the remorse she feels about the several abortions she had. Don’t get me wrong — I don’t think it’s an easy issue, but shouldn’t we care more about the life of the unborn than we do as a culture?
Geoff concludes: “Would that we did it better.”
How do you propose we did this and still “secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience”?
If “abortion is murder”, then do you propose that the heavy hand of government prevent ALL abortions? If you subscribe to the church position would you insist that each women bring a note signed by her religious leader? It’s a sad situation, but what makes you or me better able to determine the ‘right thing to do’ rather than the woman involved? What right do I have to stop an abortion?
In light of “free exercise of conscience” should the government prevent me from committing suicide (or jail me if I fail)? I trust my wife (and she trusts me) to do the ‘right thing’ should either of us become vegtables and/or require feeding tubes. Only my wife and I have a right to receive revelation concerning our journey through life. Why should strangers have a say in the matter?
Geoff says: “If he devalued life on this earth He would have told his followers that it was not right to resuscitate them — He would have pointed out they are in a better place and left it at that.” How in the heck can you know or deduce this? Christ used his gifts for his own purposes.
Yes, life is a gift and we came to earth to learn how to govern OURSELVES (not others). Government is not the answer.
Daylan: The answer to your question re: your “right” do stop an abortion is the same as your “right” to stop murder; i.e. government can and should step in to outlaw crimes against humanity and punish such offenders.
Note, you still haven’t answered how you differentiate your views from the discredited “I’m not my brother’s keeper” theory.
re: the slate hypocrisy piece (lol…that’s almost an oxymoron); The only hypocrisy, if any, exists in the justifcation for the position taken. I find this unpersuasive; it sounds alot like “Bush lied, people died,” re: WMDs while ignoring all of the other numberous justifications for the Iraqi liberation. While I’ve found myself growing less supportive of the death penalty due to its _apparent_ contradiction to a culture of life; there is a _huge_ difference between killing babies and killing murderers; to whit:
murderers have used their agency to end the mortal agency of another;
babies have done nothing; except exist due to the agency of their biological parents.
murderers don’t just “deserve” to die; their forfeit their right to life when they take the life of another. the murderer has chosen not to live by taking the life of another. babies don’t do anything of the kind.
so, since LDS doctrine doesn’t state when life begins…take your pick; safe or sorry?
Sum: So you don’t like the justification/rationale given for a given policy. No biggie; there are plently of others. Neither presidents nor people can say everything and/or get it right the first time. We are all hypocrites in one form or another.
but shouldn’t we care more about the life of the unborn than we do as a culture?
I think we care more as a culture than you give us credit for, Geoff. I would bet that the majority of Americans are still opposed to abortion, period. May states have the most restrictive anti-abortion laws possible under the current jurisprudence in the federal courts.
A minority of judges and Americans seem to be the only ones who really value the life of the unborn less than the choice of the woman carrying it.
That should be: “many states…”
Ryan, the error in Saletan’s argument is that Bush undoubtedly believes that the death penalty is a *punishment*. Saletan assuredly knows this, and is twisting the context in an effort to make Bush look bad. For example, there’s no way Saletan thinks that Bush, by virtue of his death penalty statements, believes it’s permissible to kill an innocent person in order to harvest their organs to save the lives of multiple people.
I don’t think that’s Saletan’s argument, Matt. I think that he’s found a telling problem in the broad statements Bush uses to justify his principles.
Bush states repeatedly that taking one life to benefit others is never justified. But he supports the death penalty on exactly that basis.
I understand that you believe that the punishment/desert factor mitigates the inconsistency, but I’m not sure that’s germaine to Bush’s statements, which are global in nature, and unqualified.
lyle:
I am not sure I follow the logical threads from “I am my brother’s keeper” to “therefore, the government should be more involved in the private choices people make with respect to difficult issues such as abortion, removal of life support, etc.” True, Cain’s statement has no scriptural support. But I fail to see how an individual’s ethical duty to care about his brother translates into an affirmative duty on the part of the state to, say, outlaw abortion or prevent a husband from removing his vegetative wife’s feeding tube. Should my individual, personal ethical duties be codified into law and transferred to the state? It seems to me that while “I am my brother’s keeper” may serve as an inspiring call to personal action and accountability, as an organizing principle of state action it is fraught with peril. Government acts motivated by a sense of brotherly guardianship terrify me (and I think Rand, Orwell, Huxley, and Bradbury, to name a few, might agree).
Eric: think “I, Robot.” Protect those humans from hurting themselves…
Point well taken Eric. Drawing lines isn’t a neat or easy business. Government has a place; preferably a limited one. However, some basic rules, esp. when possible modeled after God’s own, i.e. thou shalt not kill (or anything like unto), sound good to me, regardless of paternalistic overtones.
Ryan: Are the Bush quotes Saletan presents the _only_ statements Bush has made on the death penalty? If they represent the entire universe of statements; then the argument has some persuasive power. I suspect cherry picking however…
Yes, Lyle, those statements in the Slate story are in fact the only statements Bush has ever made concerning the death penalty. 🙂
Government action to prevent one individual from violating the basic liberties of another individual=good (solid basis for laws against murder).
Government action to compel one individual to act as his brother’s keeper=bad (not a solid basis for laws against murder).
GeoffB,
Once again, you’re missing the point the Terri Schiavo case.
Almost no one disagrees that life (especially innocent life) should be protected, and that one of the main purposes of government is to do so.
The disagreement here is over whether it is good and right and kind to keep a person alive through artificial means when they are mentally “gone” and have no hope of coming back. Michael Schiavo argued that was the case with his wife Terri. Every doctor who examined her and her medical records agreed with him. Every court who heard his case agreed with him (even the federal appeals courts that were dragged into the case by the U.S. Congress).
I would argue — and I think most people in the U.S. agree with me — that the agonizing decision to let a loved one go is best made by his or her family, not some pencil-pushing bureaucrat.
Terri’s case is completely unlike having the police around to keep people from murdering, or maintaining a military force to prevent foreign governments from attacking. Lumping them all together into a one-dimensional “choose life” policy is shortsighted and wrong.
To quote Obi-Wan Kenobi, “Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes.” 🙂
That’s easy for you to say, you’ve never passed a watermelon.
Jordan Fowles (#10)I would bet that the majority of Americans are still opposed to abortion, period.
As with so many other facets of our current topic, it’s not that simple. Americans are almost equally divided in considering themselves pro-choice (47%) or pro-life (46%). But more think abortion is generally morally wrong (53%) than morally acceptable (38%). A healthy majority think that Roe should not be overturned (60%/36%). More than half think that abortion is acceptable if the woman’s life (85%) or health (77%) is endangered, if the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest (76%), if the woman’s mental health is endangered (63%), or if the baby is physically (56%) or mentally (55%) impaired; only when the reason for the abortion is the family cannot afford more children (35%) does support drop below 50%.
No absolutes here, either. “Choosing life” is a nice slogan, but it doesn’t help deal with the complexities involving real choices.
Mike, you will note that my article mentioned some of the complexities. One of the things that I wrote in the article that was cut out was that there are cases where I personally and the Church support the right to abortion. Your post mentions some of them. There are times when killing is appropriate and sanctioned by the Lord — during wartime or when an armed thief invades your house and threatens your family, for example. So, the moral absolute against killing has limitations. The same thing applies to abortion and to stem cells and to euthenasia cases. My article was really about the correct role that government should have toward the issue of life. And my argument is that we have moved to the wrong side on this issue — we have forgotten as a culture that the government should primarily preserve life, not figure out justifications for taking it for conveniences’ sake.
Geoff B.:
Why elevate “life” above the other two principles mentioned in the Declaration? Is it really more important than liberty or pursuing happiness? I’m not at all sure it is. But your article seems to imply that.
Regardless of the answer to that question, I found the piece puzzling because it said it would address the proper role of government. But as far as I can tell only suggests what individuals should believe about life. Your argument in the piece in no way addresses any of the questions of how government should be structured–which in my judgment is a question that is inevitable and ultimately of more practical importance.
You might not agree, but I think the founders discovered this fact. Just over a decade after they voiced their overarching principles, they found that such principles were woefully insufficient because nobody agrees on what they mean in specific circumstances. They then penned the constitution, a much more subtle document and one which section 134 explicitly endorses (as opposed to the Declaration which it does not explicitly endorse).
So the question about the proper role of government isn’t really limited to the question of should people “choose life.” Given different circumstances some people will. Some won’t. That’s the problem: how do we resolve those differences? It would be nice if everyone agreed with you. I’d probably like that world. We don’t live there. Do you have any thoughts about what government should actually BE (not just what it should do)?
Geoff B (#22):[W]e have forgotten as a culture that the government should primarily preserve life, not figure out justifications for taking it for conveniences’ sake.
I’m not sure how or why you think “the government” took Terri Schiavo’s life “for conveniences’ sake.” This was a family decision that ended up in court because her parents disagreed with her husband. The court found in favor of her husband. Her husband directed the feeding tube to be removed; the court merely secured his right to do so.
The way you put it, however, would imply that armed federal agents came into the hospice and yanked the feeding tube out of her because she was “inconvenient.”
Again, there is a difference between protecting and preserving innocent life (e.g., from murder) and protecting a family’s right to make the best decision for a incapacitated, severely brain damaged individual. Conflating the two is misguided, simplistic, and wrong.
Mike and JCP, I will try to answer both of your comments here. The judicial branch is part of the government, in fact in my opinion it is the branch that right now is least moral and most willing to forget the important role that government should have in preserving life. If the judicial branch were infused with a proper sense of its function, it would have looked at the evidence, heard the witnesses and said, “Terri Schiavo is in a very unfortunate situation, Michael Schiavo may or may not be trying to carry out her wishes, but there is an easy solution here: let her parents take care of her. This court understands the importance of life. Terri Schiavo has a severely damaged cerebral cortex but can stay alive if she is fed. Because of the importance of preserving life, this court decides that her parents have the right to keep her alive as long as they would like to.” This is a perfectly common-sense decision, but because we as a culture have denigrated the importance of life, the various courts came up with all kinds of reasons not to pursue this route.
My point is this: as Latter-day Saints, we know we are in the last days and that society will deteriorate around us in many ways during the last days. My feeling is that there are many reasons to be optimistic, but that we should also sound a warning sign to those around us about worrisome trends. Modern-day prophets have said again and again that preserving life is important. The Savior’s example was clearly that preserving life is important. This Earth was created so that billions of spirits could come here and have a mortal experience. Clearly, we should be cherishing the preservation of life, especially as Latter-day Saints. At the same time, our governments are coming up with new excuses for extinguishing life. It is time we stood up and calmly and forthrightly (but not with contention or outrage) said, “when there are difficult decisions, we should come down on the side of life.”
Geoff,
I think it’s dandy that you believe there’s some potentially consistent idea of “life” that can inform political policy decisions. (I happen to think the “err on the side of life” maxim is woefully simplistic and inadequate to the difficult questions, but I’m perfectly content to disagree with you.) However, if you’re going to suggest that God shares your politics, or that righteous Latter-day Saints are required to have the same views, you have a good deal more theological explaining to do–perhaps you can start with the Old Testament, and try demonstrating that Jehovah is as interested in the preservation of mere biological life as you are. Next, try the Book of Mormon. It seems pretty clear to me that there are principles God cares about significantly more than the preservation of earthly, mortal life.
Kristine has an excellent point. Of what use is life if there is no agency; nor hope for it? Jehovah consistently chose to end life in the OT, apparently when it was clear they would not repent/choose the gospel. Given that life here is _for the purpose_ of choosing, or not, the Gospel; this seems fairly reasonable; esp. as he is the perfect and ultimate judge. So, one principle God cares more about is “eternal progression.” However, the _perfect judge_ would seem to prevent a mortal government from instituting this as policy. Hm…
Ryan: Thanks for the update. I admit, that seems to be a poser. Did you do a lexis search? I admit that I’m puzzled enough to dig into this a bit more.
Geoff says
“there is an easy solution here: let her parents take care of her. This court understands the importance of life.”
I’m sympathetic to your overall views, but your criticisms of the judiciary are off base. A judge’s job is not to reach some best outcome (or “easy solution”). It is to apply rules. The imposition of vague biases — “favor life;” “favor personal liberty;” “favor the party who was historically discriminated against;” — distort the act of applying the law, and make it less transparent and less predictable. If you want Florida courts to reach a certain outcome, convince the legislature to create substantive and procedural rules that would tend to produce that outcome. The itch to first seize upon a desired result and then expect the judiciary to somehow find a way to reach it is vintage progressive jurisprudence, and your indulgent scratching of this itch in the Schiavo case hurts your argument against cases like Roe v. Wade.
The philosophy here seems very much based on ensuring outcomes (the one’s favored by the author). The founders are again an instructive example. With one exception they elected not to enshrine outcomes in the Constitution. They merely created a process, and hoped that outcomes would be good. The one exception, of course, was a protection of slavery (admittedly a temporary one). Look how well that went.
I could go on, but I think the notion that court decisions with which we disagree are illegitimate is not one that stands up to a lot of scrutiny.
I agree with posts 26-29. The purpose of the judicial branch is not to make the law (“This is what’s best for Terri”) but to interpret the law in various circumstances (“The law says a spouse makes decisions for an incapacitated spouse, not the parents; how do we apply that in Terri’s case?”). The courts repeatedly decided in favor of Michael Schiavo, not because they (the courts) are immoral, but because the law clearly states that Michael is the one to make medical decisions for Terri, not the Schindlers. If you feel that this is wrong, then your problem is with the law, not the courts.
GeoffB (#25):“Modern-day prophets have said again and again that preserving life is important.
Actually, if you look in the current Church Handbook of Instructions, you’ll find that the Church’s position isn’t quite so simplistic:
“When severe illness strikes, members should exercise faith in the Lord and seek competent medical assistance. However, when dying becomes inevitable, it should be seen as a blessing and a purposeful part of eternal existence. Members should not feel obligated to extend mortal life by means that are unreasonable. These judgments are best made by family members after receiving wise and competent medical advice and seeking divine guidance through fasting and prayer.” (1:156.)
The Schiavo case was — and should have been — a family decision. When the family disagreed, it was up the courts to determine who had the right to make decisions for her. That person was her husband. The courts were correct not to interfere with his rights. Taking that decision out of his hands would have been another step in government control over individuals, contra the intent of the framers of our Constitution.
With respect, your article cites little evidence for the statement that “[i]n fact, the one branch of government that has consistently shown contempt for life is the judicial branch.” In fact, it sounds you have done little more research-wise than read and recite Tom DeLay talking points. Have you read any of the Schiavo opinions? What part of the decisions showed contempt for life? What aspects of common law or legislation did those opinions misconstrue? Which doctors were supposedly lying about the severity of her condition, and if so, to what purpose? There may be arguments to be made about Roe, but why anyone would think the Schiavo matter was a good example of judicial disrespect for life is beyond me. Rather, it is more a tale of the cynical quest for power by the fringes of the Republican Party.
At least you haven’t (quite) stooped to the level of outright vilification of Michael Schiavo, a gentlemen I assume you (nor I for that matter) have ever met, and who perhaps we can agree faced painful and complicated decisions that I hope neither you, nor I, will be forced to confront. Having said that, however, if I were faced with similar circumstances, I would rather I make those decisions than have it left to politically motivated congressmen who knew nothing about me or my family and merely wanted to exploit my tragedy–which is, after all, the real disrespect for life that occurred. I also feel fairly confident that the courts in this matter weren’t seeking publicity, political power, or showing contempt for life, they were just making the best decisions they could under unusual and difficult circumstances (and this case saw plenty of judges with varying political stripes).
Lyle #9 “government can and should step in to outlaw crimes against humanity and punish such offenders.”
So when is the government going to punish Bush and associates for the crimes against Iraqi humanity?
Lyle, Please resist any temptation to respond to the threadjack in #32.
Nathan: What temptation? I began my legal career sueing oil companies for violating human rights/war crimes. I think I’ve got a fairly good handle on what constitutes war crimes and don’t see any reason to answer a non-question.
They ‘fisked’ the slate story; and found it wanting for lack of context. Perhaps you will too?
Peter (#31):
Amen, and amen.
Ryan, but by Saletan’s argument that Bush contradicts himself on these issues (I couldn’t tell from your response to my comment if we were agreed on Saletan’s argument), he must also believe, judging by Bush’s statements about the death penalty, that Bush thinks it is proper to kill ONE William Saletan in order to harvest his organs to save TWO people in dire need of organs, no? But Saletan doesn’t really believe Bush’s statements on the death penalty require that he also believe it would be better if Saletan were killed and his organs passed around; Saletan’s simply trying to make Bush look foolishly inconsistent.
Okay, let me try and breakdown Saletan’s argument as I understand it:
1. Bush states the general proposition that it is immoral to sacrifice one life for the benefit of others.
2. And yet, he also is willing to execute criminals, purportedly with the justification that the execution will save laves, i.e., benefit other humans.
3. The combination of these two propositions creates a whole that is inconsistent. In other words, proposition 1 is followed in one context (stem-cells), but not in another (capital punishment).
Now, you seem to think that accepting this argument also necessitates the following belief: Bush must also agree that it would be a good thing to sacrifice a human in order to use that human’s organs for two others in need.
Why on earth is that last belief necessary to the previous argument? Saletan is not accusing Bush of applying the “sacrifice one life for the benefit of many” rationale in all cases. Only that he has applied it in one context, even though his public statements in another context suggest he thinks it is immoral. I confess I’m having difficulty understanding your concern.
Lyle, not sure if you picked up on this, but I was joking above, where I asserted that Saletan had included all of Bush’s extant comments on the death penalty. Also, I can’t make your Volokh link work.
Lyle, thanks for pointing out the Volokh fisking. Your link wasn’t working, but I think this one should:
Volokh made the same point I did above: “one should recognize that most people (not all, I suppose, but most) who talk of deterrence as to the death penalty are implicitly making the guilty-innocent distinction.”
Volokh even found that Bush explicitly made that very distinction in the sentence prior to one Saletan used in his article claiming that Bush had never made the distinction!
Bush: “the difference between the case of Terry Schiavo and the case of a convicted killer is the difference between guilt and innocence. And I happen to believe that the death penalty, when properly applied, saves lives of others.”
McClellan: “the president’s view is the way it is [culture of life and capital punishment], and that’s because we’re talking about the difference between innocent life and someone who is guilty of horrific crimes.”
Blogs are changing the world!
Ryan, I took Saletan’s argument to work in the opposite direction:
1. Bush supports killing a person (capital punishment) because it saves lives, yet
2. Bush opposes killing a person (embryo) to save lives!
I assumed the argument went in that direction because I understood Saletan to be arguing against Bush’s position on embryonic stem cell research, not his position on capital punishment. If he was accepting Bush’s statements on the death penalty and applying them to embryos, as I thought he was, then the statements would apply equally well in other contexts of killing one person to save two, such as organ harvesting.
Ryan, I just went back and re-read Saletan’s piece. I definitely think he’s arguing against Bush’s position on stem cells. He goes off the deep end in this section:
The standard Bush set four years ago and repeated last week is that we shouldn’t take one life—even an embryonic life—in order to save others. Cost-benefit analysis is never sufficient grounds for the premeditated killing of civilians—except when it comes to the death penalty. When the discussion shifts from embryos to murderers, Bush and his spokesmen routinely argue that killing is justified not because murderers deserve it, but because it’s moral to take one life in order to save others. (Emphasis added.)
Saletan is just plain wrong here, as the quotes I cited above show: Bush supports capital punishment, in part, because murderers are guilty.
Ryan: oh. No, I didn’t catch that. I asked because Slate is famous for cherry picking and just plain misleading people when just a _slightly_ more thorough cite would destroy the point they are trying to make; as Volokh/Matt point to above.
No controversy there!
Geoff,
Does this theory also apply to immigration? And to capital punishment?
I don’t know, the thought of a 13 year old giving birth just pains me. I know they do it all the time, but I find this very sad. I’m not advocating abortion, but you guys, 13 year olds are tiny–having a baby hurts.
I’m glad I don’t have to make that decision.
How about to welfare? Universal health coverage?
Re-read your article, Geoff, wondering how Kaimi’s question applied. I often have to read something several times to begin to understand. Which accounts for the times when I make no sense whatsoever.
I don’t know about immigration and I am in favor of capitol punishment, but I’m not sure the judge was wrong in that case.
You, as a man, were looking at her raising the baby, which is a real consideration, and I think, a total impossibility, although I’ve seen girls try to do it. The babies born into these situations almost always become screwed up in some way.
But pregnancy is hard on a woman, and especially on a young girl. I know, I know, they do it in Africa. But that doesn’t mean they should.
Joseph Smith said, “that which is wrong in one circumstance, can be, and often is, right in another.”
Here’s an interesting story on the hypocrisy of the culture of life. Made me think.
Kaimi, I’m not sure what you mean about immigration, but if I were going to guess, you mean am I in favor of allowing immigrants whose lives are in danger of entering the U.S. And the answer is yes in some cases, without going off-topic. I am against the death penalty, so no “gotcha” moment for you there. Sam B, on welfare, I think churches and other private institutions are much better than the federal government at actually helping people stay alive and making sure that aid gets to the people it should get to. I’m in favor of free-market reforms in the health care industry that would bring better and cheaper health care to everybody.
Anne, we as a culture spend too much time looking at how “traumatic” it is for women to have babies (something that the Lord has created most of them to do) and too little time talking about how traumatic it is for them to use medical procedures to stop a pregancy. There are serious long-term feelings of guilt and remorse associated with such a decision. Look at the woman who was the “Roe” in Roe v. Wade. She spends all of her time now trying to get Roe v. Wade reversed because of the remorse she feels about the several abortions she had. Don’t get me wrong — I don’t think it’s an easy issue, but shouldn’t we care more about the life of the unborn than we do as a culture?
Geoff concludes: “Would that we did it better.”
How do you propose we did this and still “secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience”?
If “abortion is murder”, then do you propose that the heavy hand of government prevent ALL abortions? If you subscribe to the church position would you insist that each women bring a note signed by her religious leader? It’s a sad situation, but what makes you or me better able to determine the ‘right thing to do’ rather than the woman involved? What right do I have to stop an abortion?
In light of “free exercise of conscience” should the government prevent me from committing suicide (or jail me if I fail)? I trust my wife (and she trusts me) to do the ‘right thing’ should either of us become vegtables and/or require feeding tubes. Only my wife and I have a right to receive revelation concerning our journey through life. Why should strangers have a say in the matter?
Geoff says: “If he devalued life on this earth He would have told his followers that it was not right to resuscitate them — He would have pointed out they are in a better place and left it at that.” How in the heck can you know or deduce this? Christ used his gifts for his own purposes.
Yes, life is a gift and we came to earth to learn how to govern OURSELVES (not others). Government is not the answer.
Daylan: The answer to your question re: your “right” do stop an abortion is the same as your “right” to stop murder; i.e. government can and should step in to outlaw crimes against humanity and punish such offenders.
Note, you still haven’t answered how you differentiate your views from the discredited “I’m not my brother’s keeper” theory.
re: the slate hypocrisy piece (lol…that’s almost an oxymoron); The only hypocrisy, if any, exists in the justifcation for the position taken. I find this unpersuasive; it sounds alot like “Bush lied, people died,” re: WMDs while ignoring all of the other numberous justifications for the Iraqi liberation. While I’ve found myself growing less supportive of the death penalty due to its _apparent_ contradiction to a culture of life; there is a _huge_ difference between killing babies and killing murderers; to whit:
murderers have used their agency to end the mortal agency of another;
babies have done nothing; except exist due to the agency of their biological parents.
murderers don’t just “deserve” to die; their forfeit their right to life when they take the life of another. the murderer has chosen not to live by taking the life of another. babies don’t do anything of the kind.
so, since LDS doctrine doesn’t state when life begins…take your pick; safe or sorry?
Sum: So you don’t like the justification/rationale given for a given policy. No biggie; there are plently of others. Neither presidents nor people can say everything and/or get it right the first time. We are all hypocrites in one form or another.
but shouldn’t we care more about the life of the unborn than we do as a culture?
I think we care more as a culture than you give us credit for, Geoff. I would bet that the majority of Americans are still opposed to abortion, period. May states have the most restrictive anti-abortion laws possible under the current jurisprudence in the federal courts.
A minority of judges and Americans seem to be the only ones who really value the life of the unborn less than the choice of the woman carrying it.
That should be: “many states…”
Ryan, the error in Saletan’s argument is that Bush undoubtedly believes that the death penalty is a *punishment*. Saletan assuredly knows this, and is twisting the context in an effort to make Bush look bad. For example, there’s no way Saletan thinks that Bush, by virtue of his death penalty statements, believes it’s permissible to kill an innocent person in order to harvest their organs to save the lives of multiple people.
I don’t think that’s Saletan’s argument, Matt. I think that he’s found a telling problem in the broad statements Bush uses to justify his principles.
Bush states repeatedly that taking one life to benefit others is never justified. But he supports the death penalty on exactly that basis.
I understand that you believe that the punishment/desert factor mitigates the inconsistency, but I’m not sure that’s germaine to Bush’s statements, which are global in nature, and unqualified.
lyle:
I am not sure I follow the logical threads from “I am my brother’s keeper” to “therefore, the government should be more involved in the private choices people make with respect to difficult issues such as abortion, removal of life support, etc.” True, Cain’s statement has no scriptural support. But I fail to see how an individual’s ethical duty to care about his brother translates into an affirmative duty on the part of the state to, say, outlaw abortion or prevent a husband from removing his vegetative wife’s feeding tube. Should my individual, personal ethical duties be codified into law and transferred to the state? It seems to me that while “I am my brother’s keeper” may serve as an inspiring call to personal action and accountability, as an organizing principle of state action it is fraught with peril. Government acts motivated by a sense of brotherly guardianship terrify me (and I think Rand, Orwell, Huxley, and Bradbury, to name a few, might agree).
Eric: think “I, Robot.” Protect those humans from hurting themselves…
Point well taken Eric. Drawing lines isn’t a neat or easy business. Government has a place; preferably a limited one. However, some basic rules, esp. when possible modeled after God’s own, i.e. thou shalt not kill (or anything like unto), sound good to me, regardless of paternalistic overtones.
Ryan: Are the Bush quotes Saletan presents the _only_ statements Bush has made on the death penalty? If they represent the entire universe of statements; then the argument has some persuasive power. I suspect cherry picking however…
Yes, Lyle, those statements in the Slate story are in fact the only statements Bush has ever made concerning the death penalty. 🙂
Government action to prevent one individual from violating the basic liberties of another individual=good (solid basis for laws against murder).
Government action to compel one individual to act as his brother’s keeper=bad (not a solid basis for laws against murder).
GeoffB,
Once again, you’re missing the point the Terri Schiavo case.
Almost no one disagrees that life (especially innocent life) should be protected, and that one of the main purposes of government is to do so.
The disagreement here is over whether it is good and right and kind to keep a person alive through artificial means when they are mentally “gone” and have no hope of coming back. Michael Schiavo argued that was the case with his wife Terri. Every doctor who examined her and her medical records agreed with him. Every court who heard his case agreed with him (even the federal appeals courts that were dragged into the case by the U.S. Congress).
I would argue — and I think most people in the U.S. agree with me — that the agonizing decision to let a loved one go is best made by his or her family, not some pencil-pushing bureaucrat.
Terri’s case is completely unlike having the police around to keep people from murdering, or maintaining a military force to prevent foreign governments from attacking. Lumping them all together into a one-dimensional “choose life” policy is shortsighted and wrong.
To quote Obi-Wan Kenobi, “Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes.” 🙂
That’s easy for you to say, you’ve never passed a watermelon.
Jordan Fowles (#10) I would bet that the majority of Americans are still opposed to abortion, period.
As with so many other facets of our current topic, it’s not that simple. Americans are almost equally divided in considering themselves pro-choice (47%) or pro-life (46%). But more think abortion is generally morally wrong (53%) than morally acceptable (38%). A healthy majority think that Roe should not be overturned (60%/36%). More than half think that abortion is acceptable if the woman’s life (85%) or health (77%) is endangered, if the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest (76%), if the woman’s mental health is endangered (63%), or if the baby is physically (56%) or mentally (55%) impaired; only when the reason for the abortion is the family cannot afford more children (35%) does support drop below 50%.
Source
No absolutes here, either. “Choosing life” is a nice slogan, but it doesn’t help deal with the complexities involving real choices.
Mike, you will note that my article mentioned some of the complexities. One of the things that I wrote in the article that was cut out was that there are cases where I personally and the Church support the right to abortion. Your post mentions some of them. There are times when killing is appropriate and sanctioned by the Lord — during wartime or when an armed thief invades your house and threatens your family, for example. So, the moral absolute against killing has limitations. The same thing applies to abortion and to stem cells and to euthenasia cases. My article was really about the correct role that government should have toward the issue of life. And my argument is that we have moved to the wrong side on this issue — we have forgotten as a culture that the government should primarily preserve life, not figure out justifications for taking it for conveniences’ sake.
Geoff B.:
Why elevate “life” above the other two principles mentioned in the Declaration? Is it really more important than liberty or pursuing happiness? I’m not at all sure it is. But your article seems to imply that.
Regardless of the answer to that question, I found the piece puzzling because it said it would address the proper role of government. But as far as I can tell only suggests what individuals should believe about life. Your argument in the piece in no way addresses any of the questions of how government should be structured–which in my judgment is a question that is inevitable and ultimately of more practical importance.
You might not agree, but I think the founders discovered this fact. Just over a decade after they voiced their overarching principles, they found that such principles were woefully insufficient because nobody agrees on what they mean in specific circumstances. They then penned the constitution, a much more subtle document and one which section 134 explicitly endorses (as opposed to the Declaration which it does not explicitly endorse).
So the question about the proper role of government isn’t really limited to the question of should people “choose life.” Given different circumstances some people will. Some won’t. That’s the problem: how do we resolve those differences? It would be nice if everyone agreed with you. I’d probably like that world. We don’t live there. Do you have any thoughts about what government should actually BE (not just what it should do)?
Geoff B (#22): [W]e have forgotten as a culture that the government should primarily preserve life, not figure out justifications for taking it for conveniences’ sake.
I’m not sure how or why you think “the government” took Terri Schiavo’s life “for conveniences’ sake.” This was a family decision that ended up in court because her parents disagreed with her husband. The court found in favor of her husband. Her husband directed the feeding tube to be removed; the court merely secured his right to do so.
The way you put it, however, would imply that armed federal agents came into the hospice and yanked the feeding tube out of her because she was “inconvenient.”
Again, there is a difference between protecting and preserving innocent life (e.g., from murder) and protecting a family’s right to make the best decision for a incapacitated, severely brain damaged individual. Conflating the two is misguided, simplistic, and wrong.
Mike and JCP, I will try to answer both of your comments here. The judicial branch is part of the government, in fact in my opinion it is the branch that right now is least moral and most willing to forget the important role that government should have in preserving life. If the judicial branch were infused with a proper sense of its function, it would have looked at the evidence, heard the witnesses and said, “Terri Schiavo is in a very unfortunate situation, Michael Schiavo may or may not be trying to carry out her wishes, but there is an easy solution here: let her parents take care of her. This court understands the importance of life. Terri Schiavo has a severely damaged cerebral cortex but can stay alive if she is fed. Because of the importance of preserving life, this court decides that her parents have the right to keep her alive as long as they would like to.” This is a perfectly common-sense decision, but because we as a culture have denigrated the importance of life, the various courts came up with all kinds of reasons not to pursue this route.
My point is this: as Latter-day Saints, we know we are in the last days and that society will deteriorate around us in many ways during the last days. My feeling is that there are many reasons to be optimistic, but that we should also sound a warning sign to those around us about worrisome trends. Modern-day prophets have said again and again that preserving life is important. The Savior’s example was clearly that preserving life is important. This Earth was created so that billions of spirits could come here and have a mortal experience. Clearly, we should be cherishing the preservation of life, especially as Latter-day Saints. At the same time, our governments are coming up with new excuses for extinguishing life. It is time we stood up and calmly and forthrightly (but not with contention or outrage) said, “when there are difficult decisions, we should come down on the side of life.”
Geoff,
I think it’s dandy that you believe there’s some potentially consistent idea of “life” that can inform political policy decisions. (I happen to think the “err on the side of life” maxim is woefully simplistic and inadequate to the difficult questions, but I’m perfectly content to disagree with you.) However, if you’re going to suggest that God shares your politics, or that righteous Latter-day Saints are required to have the same views, you have a good deal more theological explaining to do–perhaps you can start with the Old Testament, and try demonstrating that Jehovah is as interested in the preservation of mere biological life as you are. Next, try the Book of Mormon. It seems pretty clear to me that there are principles God cares about significantly more than the preservation of earthly, mortal life.
Kristine has an excellent point. Of what use is life if there is no agency; nor hope for it? Jehovah consistently chose to end life in the OT, apparently when it was clear they would not repent/choose the gospel. Given that life here is _for the purpose_ of choosing, or not, the Gospel; this seems fairly reasonable; esp. as he is the perfect and ultimate judge. So, one principle God cares more about is “eternal progression.” However, the _perfect judge_ would seem to prevent a mortal government from instituting this as policy. Hm…
Ryan: Thanks for the update. I admit, that seems to be a poser. Did you do a lexis search? I admit that I’m puzzled enough to dig into this a bit more.
Geoff says
“there is an easy solution here: let her parents take care of her. This court understands the importance of life.”
I’m sympathetic to your overall views, but your criticisms of the judiciary are off base. A judge’s job is not to reach some best outcome (or “easy solution”). It is to apply rules. The imposition of vague biases — “favor life;” “favor personal liberty;” “favor the party who was historically discriminated against;” — distort the act of applying the law, and make it less transparent and less predictable. If you want Florida courts to reach a certain outcome, convince the legislature to create substantive and procedural rules that would tend to produce that outcome. The itch to first seize upon a desired result and then expect the judiciary to somehow find a way to reach it is vintage progressive jurisprudence, and your indulgent scratching of this itch in the Schiavo case hurts your argument against cases like Roe v. Wade.
The philosophy here seems very much based on ensuring outcomes (the one’s favored by the author). The founders are again an instructive example. With one exception they elected not to enshrine outcomes in the Constitution. They merely created a process, and hoped that outcomes would be good. The one exception, of course, was a protection of slavery (admittedly a temporary one). Look how well that went.
I could go on, but I think the notion that court decisions with which we disagree are illegitimate is not one that stands up to a lot of scrutiny.
I agree with posts 26-29. The purpose of the judicial branch is not to make the law (“This is what’s best for Terri”) but to interpret the law in various circumstances (“The law says a spouse makes decisions for an incapacitated spouse, not the parents; how do we apply that in Terri’s case?”). The courts repeatedly decided in favor of Michael Schiavo, not because they (the courts) are immoral, but because the law clearly states that Michael is the one to make medical decisions for Terri, not the Schindlers. If you feel that this is wrong, then your problem is with the law, not the courts.
GeoffB (#25): “Modern-day prophets have said again and again that preserving life is important.
Actually, if you look in the current Church Handbook of Instructions, you’ll find that the Church’s position isn’t quite so simplistic:
“When severe illness strikes, members should exercise faith in the Lord and seek competent medical assistance. However, when dying becomes inevitable, it should be seen as a blessing and a purposeful part of eternal existence. Members should not feel obligated to extend mortal life by means that are unreasonable. These judgments are best made by family members after receiving wise and competent medical advice and seeking divine guidance through fasting and prayer.” (1:156.)
The Schiavo case was — and should have been — a family decision. When the family disagreed, it was up the courts to determine who had the right to make decisions for her. That person was her husband. The courts were correct not to interfere with his rights. Taking that decision out of his hands would have been another step in government control over individuals, contra the intent of the framers of our Constitution.
With respect, your article cites little evidence for the statement that “[i]n fact, the one branch of government that has consistently shown contempt for life is the judicial branch.” In fact, it sounds you have done little more research-wise than read and recite Tom DeLay talking points. Have you read any of the Schiavo opinions? What part of the decisions showed contempt for life? What aspects of common law or legislation did those opinions misconstrue? Which doctors were supposedly lying about the severity of her condition, and if so, to what purpose? There may be arguments to be made about Roe, but why anyone would think the Schiavo matter was a good example of judicial disrespect for life is beyond me. Rather, it is more a tale of the cynical quest for power by the fringes of the Republican Party.
At least you haven’t (quite) stooped to the level of outright vilification of Michael Schiavo, a gentlemen I assume you (nor I for that matter) have ever met, and who perhaps we can agree faced painful and complicated decisions that I hope neither you, nor I, will be forced to confront. Having said that, however, if I were faced with similar circumstances, I would rather I make those decisions than have it left to politically motivated congressmen who knew nothing about me or my family and merely wanted to exploit my tragedy–which is, after all, the real disrespect for life that occurred. I also feel fairly confident that the courts in this matter weren’t seeking publicity, political power, or showing contempt for life, they were just making the best decisions they could under unusual and difficult circumstances (and this case saw plenty of judges with varying political stripes).
Lyle #9 “government can and should step in to outlaw crimes against humanity and punish such offenders.”
So when is the government going to punish Bush and associates for the crimes against Iraqi humanity?
Lyle, Please resist any temptation to respond to the threadjack in #32.
Nathan: What temptation? I began my legal career sueing oil companies for violating human rights/war crimes. I think I’ve got a fairly good handle on what constitutes war crimes and don’t see any reason to answer a non-question.
Ryan:
Saved by Volkh, as usual.
http://volokh.com/admin/trackbackdrum.pl?post=1117062960
They ‘fisked’ the slate story; and found it wanting for lack of context. Perhaps you will too?
Peter (#31):
Amen, and amen.
Ryan, but by Saletan’s argument that Bush contradicts himself on these issues (I couldn’t tell from your response to my comment if we were agreed on Saletan’s argument), he must also believe, judging by Bush’s statements about the death penalty, that Bush thinks it is proper to kill ONE William Saletan in order to harvest his organs to save TWO people in dire need of organs, no? But Saletan doesn’t really believe Bush’s statements on the death penalty require that he also believe it would be better if Saletan were killed and his organs passed around; Saletan’s simply trying to make Bush look foolishly inconsistent.
Okay, let me try and breakdown Saletan’s argument as I understand it:
1. Bush states the general proposition that it is immoral to sacrifice one life for the benefit of others.
2. And yet, he also is willing to execute criminals, purportedly with the justification that the execution will save laves, i.e., benefit other humans.
3. The combination of these two propositions creates a whole that is inconsistent. In other words, proposition 1 is followed in one context (stem-cells), but not in another (capital punishment).
Now, you seem to think that accepting this argument also necessitates the following belief: Bush must also agree that it would be a good thing to sacrifice a human in order to use that human’s organs for two others in need.
Why on earth is that last belief necessary to the previous argument? Saletan is not accusing Bush of applying the “sacrifice one life for the benefit of many” rationale in all cases. Only that he has applied it in one context, even though his public statements in another context suggest he thinks it is immoral. I confess I’m having difficulty understanding your concern.
Lyle, not sure if you picked up on this, but I was joking above, where I asserted that Saletan had included all of Bush’s extant comments on the death penalty. Also, I can’t make your Volokh link work.
Lyle, thanks for pointing out the Volokh fisking. Your link wasn’t working, but I think this one should:
http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_05_22-2005_05_28.shtml#1117062960
Volokh made the same point I did above: “one should recognize that most people (not all, I suppose, but most) who talk of deterrence as to the death penalty are implicitly making the guilty-innocent distinction.”
Volokh even found that Bush explicitly made that very distinction in the sentence prior to one Saletan used in his article claiming that Bush had never made the distinction!
Bush: “the difference between the case of Terry Schiavo and the case of a convicted killer is the difference between guilt and innocence. And I happen to believe that the death penalty, when properly applied, saves lives of others.”
McClellan: “the president’s view is the way it is [culture of life and capital punishment], and that’s because we’re talking about the difference between innocent life and someone who is guilty of horrific crimes.”
Blogs are changing the world!
Ryan, I took Saletan’s argument to work in the opposite direction:
1. Bush supports killing a person (capital punishment) because it saves lives, yet
2. Bush opposes killing a person (embryo) to save lives!
I assumed the argument went in that direction because I understood Saletan to be arguing against Bush’s position on embryonic stem cell research, not his position on capital punishment. If he was accepting Bush’s statements on the death penalty and applying them to embryos, as I thought he was, then the statements would apply equally well in other contexts of killing one person to save two, such as organ harvesting.
Ryan, I just went back and re-read Saletan’s piece. I definitely think he’s arguing against Bush’s position on stem cells. He goes off the deep end in this section:
Saletan is just plain wrong here, as the quotes I cited above show: Bush supports capital punishment, in part, because murderers are guilty.
Ryan: oh. No, I didn’t catch that. I asked because Slate is famous for cherry picking and just plain misleading people when just a _slightly_ more thorough cite would destroy the point they are trying to make; as Volokh/Matt point to above.