J
jlw
Guest
The Innocent and the Guilty: 's Human NatureSlate says, under the subhead “Bush’s hypocrisy on stem cells and the death penalty”:
President Bush said he would veto [legislation to expand federal funding of human embryonic stem-cell research] because it “violates the clear standard I set four years ago. This bill would take us across a critical ethical line by creating new incentives for the ongoing destruction of emerging human life.”
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. He doesn’t say that Person A should be executed because Person A is a danger to society. He says that Person A should be executed because the execution will deter Person B from killing Person C.
Before Bush vetoes the stem-cell bill, maybe he should explain how his comments about stem cells in the left column below square with his comments about capital punishment in the right column [giving examples].
Well, that’s interesting – let’s have a look at quotes as an example of the President’s comments on capital punishmenta speech that Slate:
“I happen to believe that the death penalty, when properly applied, saves lives of others. And so I’m comfortable with my beliefs that there’s no contradiction between the two.”
Here’s a funny thing: If we start the quote a few sentences before, here’s what we get (emphasis added):
Q Can you please talk about a little bit about your view of the death penalty and how that fits into your vision of a culture of life?
THE PRESIDENT: Sure. Thanks. I have been supportive of the death penalty, both as governor and President. And 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. And so I’m comfortable with my beliefs that there’s no contradiction between the two.
Say, isn’t that President Bush “explain[ing] how his comments about stem cells . . . square with his comments about capital punishment”? Maybe you aren’t persuaded by it, but doesn’t it absolve him of the charges of “hypocrisy” (though not of the charges of error, if you think he’s mistaken)? And might it have been worthwhile to quote that sentence as well as the two afterwards, if one’s complaint about the President is that he’s supposedly not reconciling his supposedly inconsistent views?
Or, if you’d like, here are Scott McClellan’s comments on April 4, 2005:
Q Scott, you mentioned the culture of life. When Pope John Paul II wrote about the culture of life in 1995, he described it also in terms of the death penalty, not just abortion and euthanasia. He said that in these modern times, cases where the death penalty is warranted are rare, if not nonexistent. Now, knowing that the president fully supports the death penalty, use of the death penalty, does he see it as a contradiction to use that phrase, “culture of life,” and still support the death penalty, which the pope expressed . . . .
MR. MCCLELLAN: No. Let’s separate out – I mean because I spoke about this issue last week and why the president’s view is the way it is, and that’s because we’re talking about the difference between innocent life and someone who is guilty of horrific crimes.
So why don’t President Bush and his spokespeople mention this every time they discuss the death penalty?
President Bush said he would veto [legislation to expand federal funding of human embryonic stem-cell research] because it “violates the clear standard I set four years ago. This bill would take us across a critical ethical line by creating new incentives for the ongoing destruction of emerging human life.”
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. He doesn’t say that Person A should be executed because Person A is a danger to society. He says that Person A should be executed because the execution will deter Person B from killing Person C.
Before Bush vetoes the stem-cell bill, maybe he should explain how his comments about stem cells in the left column below square with his comments about capital punishment in the right column [giving examples].
Well, that’s interesting – let’s have a look at quotes as an example of the President’s comments on capital punishmenta speech that Slate:
“I happen to believe that the death penalty, when properly applied, saves lives of others. And so I’m comfortable with my beliefs that there’s no contradiction between the two.”
Here’s a funny thing: If we start the quote a few sentences before, here’s what we get (emphasis added):
Q Can you please talk about a little bit about your view of the death penalty and how that fits into your vision of a culture of life?
THE PRESIDENT: Sure. Thanks. I have been supportive of the death penalty, both as governor and President. And 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. And so I’m comfortable with my beliefs that there’s no contradiction between the two.
Say, isn’t that President Bush “explain[ing] how his comments about stem cells . . . square with his comments about capital punishment”? Maybe you aren’t persuaded by it, but doesn’t it absolve him of the charges of “hypocrisy” (though not of the charges of error, if you think he’s mistaken)? And might it have been worthwhile to quote that sentence as well as the two afterwards, if one’s complaint about the President is that he’s supposedly not reconciling his supposedly inconsistent views?
Or, if you’d like, here are Scott McClellan’s comments on April 4, 2005:
Q Scott, you mentioned the culture of life. When Pope John Paul II wrote about the culture of life in 1995, he described it also in terms of the death penalty, not just abortion and euthanasia. He said that in these modern times, cases where the death penalty is warranted are rare, if not nonexistent. Now, knowing that the president fully supports the death penalty, use of the death penalty, does he see it as a contradiction to use that phrase, “culture of life,” and still support the death penalty, which the pope expressed . . . .
MR. MCCLELLAN: No. Let’s separate out – I mean because I spoke about this issue last week and why the president’s view is the way it is, and that’s because we’re talking about the difference between innocent life and someone who is guilty of horrific crimes.
So why don’t President Bush and his spokespeople mention this every time they discuss the death penalty?
