Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Abortion vs. Capital Punishment


When liberals set out to prove that conservatives are hypocrites, they will generally point out that many of the same people who are most opposed to abortions turn around and support capital punishment.

In doing so, the liberals merely confirm they lack anything even faintly resembling a moral compass. After all, who but a leftist would ever equate the life of an innocent baby with that of a cold-blooded sadist? When comparing human lives, it helps if those on both sides are recognizably human. To suggest that some degenerate who has raped and murdered a child or eviscerated an entire family be allowed to live simply because he possesses fingerprints and human DNA seems fatuous at best, repugnant at worst.

But, then, on those occasions when liberals aren’t immoral, their tendency is to be amoral, seemingly unaware that there are principles and values without which we are no better than the beasts of the jungle.

Instead, what passes for morality on the Left tends to be an eagerness to take up for those they determine to be underdogs. So they side with rampaging black thugs, illegal aliens and even the Palestinians, having decided that their terrorist activities are merely the actions of freedom fighters opposing Israeli oppression.

What’s more, because leftists are as merciless as Islamic throat-cutters, they will never hesitate to lie if they feel it serves their purpose. For instance, in the aftermath of the Hobby Lobby case, they insisted that the company had refused to offer contraception to its employees. That was a patent falsehood, and what’s more they knew it. Hobby Lobby had simply refused on religious grounds to offer four of the 24 contraceptive methods currently available, because they were deemed not to prevent conception, but, instead, to cause abortions.

In the aftermath, all the Left talked about were the four exclusions, not the other 20. For my part, in a nation where sex education appears to begin in the second or third grade and where contraceptive meds and devices are readily available, I’d think abortions would be a thing of the past. The question, why, at this late date, a million abortions a year are still taking place should be the topic under discussion, not whether Christians should be deprived of their religious rights.

But, of course, liberals are never concerned with anyone else’s freedoms and liberties, but only their own. That is why they oppose even a 20-week deadline for abortions. So far as they’re concerned, women should be able to abort a baby even in the delivery room. If you think I exaggerate, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, head of the DNC, refused to come up with a cutoff date after which women should ever be denied an abortion. When asked if curtailing abortions even after the seventh or eighth month of pregnancy might be appropriate, she simply kept insisting that it was entirely up to the woman.

Also, let us not forget that as a member of the Illinois state legislature, Barack Obama voted to allow the killing of babies who managed to survive botched abortions, meaning that even post-partum murders are okey-dokey with this crowd.

I suspect, based on the evidence, that a sizable number of those on the Left would favor aborting 17 and 18-year-olds if the mothers sensed conservative tendencies cropping up in their offspring.

The more I see and hear liberals, the more convinced I become that they are those monstrous creatures one finds in sci-fi movies who come here from another planet, possessing the ability to transform themselves into things closely resembling human beings, lacking only a conscience and a soul to make the masquerade complete.

After writing about capital punishment recently, I heard from several people. Because of the nature of my readership, I didn’t hear from any of those saps who oppose the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime. For the most part, the readers divided into two camps. On the one hand, there were those who proposed various ways to execute with the least pain possible, while others competed to come up with the most gruesome executions, some involving dungeons and ravenous rodents.

In rebuttal to one, who had recently been rendered unconscious while having his cataracts removed, and felt that a little more of whatever he received from the anesthetist would do the trick, no muss, no fuss, I readily acknowledged that he was more compassionate than I am. But I felt that his empathy was somewhat misplaced because it seemed to ignore the pain experienced by the victim and the irreplaceable loss to his or her loved ones.

I went on: “Frankly, providing sadistic killers a painless death is really low on my list of priorities. Unfortunately, liberals have done a great job of garnering influence over the legal system. In the old days, you could appeal a death sentence only if you came up with new evidence showing that the cops had perjured themselves, the prosecutor had withheld evidence beneficial to the defendant or, in those rarest of instances, when someone else confessed to the crime.

“But these days, the defense lawyers merely have to dig up a liberal judge who’ll grant them one stay of execution after another while the killer lives on and on, outliving his victim by 20 or 30 years, often hanging on until a liberal governor decides to commute his sentence.

“In the meantime, because of all the stalling tactics, a backlog builds up on Death Row, so that those opposed to capital punishment can argue that it would be barbaric to execute hundreds of individuals. What they invariably neglect to mention is that the backlog of sadists and serial killers only exists because these assorted shysters and sob sisters prevented the executions from taking place in a timely fashion.”

One other source of constant annoyance to me is Pope Francis. From the very beginning of his papacy, I had the feeling that he hadn’t been elected by the Congress of Cardinals, but by the Comintern. He mouths the same leftwing platitudes as the Castros, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. But perhaps his most offensive act yet was his recent recognition of Palestine as an independent state, giving Hamas, the terrorist group governing the Palestinians, just the sort of legitimacy jihadists crave.

I am reminded that the late Abba Eban, Israel’s onetime ambassador to the United States, once said, after the Arabs had, as usual, stormed out of a peace conference, “The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

Eban, one of the few diplomats who has ever managed to give diplomacy a good name, also suggested that “History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely only after they’ve exhausted all other options.”

After Israel’s miraculous victory in 1967, when it was attacked simultaneously by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, in what became known as the Six Day War, Eban wryly commented: “I think that this is the first war in history that on the morrow the victors sued for peace and the vanquished called for unconditional surrender.”

Instead of consorting with the tawdry likes of Secretary of State John Kerry and the representatives of Islamic terrorist groups, I would advise Pope Francis to pay closer attention to the wise words of Eban, who, from his position as Ambassador to the U.N., noted: “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13, with 26 abstentions.”

Unfortunately, with Obama in the White House and Francis in the Vatican, the vote today would be 165 to 12.

©2015 Burt Prelutsky. Comments? BurtPrelutsky@aol.com.


CLICK HERE TO GO TO BURT'S BOOKSTORE