Despite leaning further in the right of politics lately, having been red-pilled somewhat by the recent behavior patterns of the left, there are certainly hypocracies on the right which bother me. The most frustrating contradiction on the right for me is the tendency to encourage capital punishment as justice and discourage abortion as murder. Considering both involve taking a life, I consider both to be in the spectrum of murder, and both stain the party responsible regardless of how justified or righteous said party may feel about it.
For capital punishment, I see the conflict. I would want to murder someone who hurt or killed someone I care about, or at least ensure the jerk is taken out of this world by somebody. Just because I would want to would not mean I should act on that want, however justified I may feel. This is why it would be illegal for me to personally seek out the assailant and murder them myself. In my mind, it does not make it any less murderous for a state official to sign off to it and another to tie the assailant down, and for yet another to directly take their lives. The state, after all, is carrying out this taking of life on behalf of the victim-hood of those people who were harmed, and I would not want anyone to take a life on my behalf, ever.
There is an argument to be made that should a victim of a crime choose, they can personally throw the switch and, thus, personally take responsibility for the end of another human being. I still think it would stain the person, but at least there is direct responsibility being taken on, rather than creating an execution branch of government to do it for them. There is something insidious about the latter setup, something cowardly even. If you want this person dead, YOU make them dead and take that deed upon yourself. You don’t get to pass that off onto what is essentially a bureaucratic mercenary to save yourself some dirty hands.
Yet, folks on the right of politics consistently scoff when capital punishment is not allowed in a given state and act almost with glee when an offender is given the death penalty in a case. Here’s a news flash: taking delight in the destruction of a human being is not right, nor does it even any cosmic scales to destroy that human. There is something to be said for the torment of being left to rot in obscurity in prison for the rest of your life, left to the whims of prison guards and other prisoners. A child murderer or rapist, for instance, is likely to be consistently harassed, raped, and eventually killed by fellow inmates. I’d much rather they deal with that for the rest of their lives than get the easy out of a quick death. It’s a win for the most psychopathic of criminals, turning the righteous into the sinner. It’s not a win for them to disappear within prison walls.
Those on the right tend to also be against abortion, considering it to be murder of babies. I can see how they would consider the taking of the life of an innocent new human life form to be wrong while the taking the life of a violent criminal is righteous due to the comparison of innocent versus guilty; but, however guilty the criminal may be, they are still a person, an image of god, so to intentionally destroy them where other options exist is still a blotch upon those who carry out the destruction. From a practical point of view, it also limits the study of psychopathic personalities by psychologists and social workers to potentially plug whatever hole is leading to the development of criminal behavior.
But children, think of the children. It would seem that those on the right have a bias, a tendency to strip the innocence from human beings once they reach a certain age or commit certain offenses. Yes, adults do carry more responsibility for their actions, but they still carry a spark of innocence. The criminal who reaps joy from the pain and death of others is likely unable to obtain joy through any other means possibly because of biological concerns which are immutable or environmental feedback which was maligned in some way. This being the case, no human is 100% responsible for their own actions, so why would we 100% punish a human, by ending their life?
Let’s consider a hypothetical scenario wherein a woman is pregnant, and that pregnancy stands as a direct threat to the woman’s life due to a medical complication. The mere presence of the unborn human is causing the threat to the woman. That unborn human has no way to change or correct this threat, so stands innocent of intent to cause harm. Nonetheless, the likely prescription here is to carry out an abortion, sacrificing the child to protect the mother. This is clearly a tragic situation because the unborn human did nothing wrong, but are still ultimately paying the price. Let’s leave aside the possibility the child could be birthed in premature fashion and kept alive with medical technologies, which is the obvious answer where feasible, and instead assume we do not have that medical technology. Now consider there is no credible, medical threat to the mother, yet the unborn human still is killed. The rationality for this killing may include: they aren’t wanted so they wouldn’t have had a good life anyway, the woman’s well-being is worth more than an unborn child, the unborn child isn’t really a child just a cluster of cells (not really human). That is clearly immoral to your standard pro-life individual, and the excuses ring hollow to most of them.
Yet, a sociopath, who cannot feel compassion or other people as anything but objects to be manipulated, who may want to feel these things but literally cannot, commits a crime which is impossible for them to realize the severity of or feel remorse for, is executed per capital punishment. The reasons given for this execution will include rationality like: eye for an eye, we have to protect the world from their evil, best not to waste money keeping them in prison for life (they don’t deserve it), send them to hell, they aren’t even human anymore (just a monster). Try jumping back to when a sociopathic pedophile was repeatedly sodomized and beaten by their father and tell me that they are still completely responsible for who they became. These excuses ring as hollow as the excuses for abortion to me, the difference being in this case, they want to make the offender out to be a monster, dehumanizing in that way, while the pro-choice folks prefer to dehumanize the unborn by thinking of them as a soulless cluster of cells. Either way, the same dehumanization is being done to justify something which a wider perspective will reveal is ethically dubious, at best, if not outright immoral.
So while we have millions of unborn children being destroyed by government subsidized organizations in the name of gender equality (and convenience to put it bluntly), and thousands of criminals, marred by neglect and malignance in their childhood, are being executed in the name of justice (or vengeance to put it bluntly), our government officials are bickering over the immorality of walls and red hats. And our society is obsessing in post-modern fashion over the color of people’s skin and carrying on with oppression olympics.
As far as I’m concerned, that’s batshit insane. But hey, what else is new.