by Lane Diamond

Created on: October 08, 2009   Last Updated: October 09, 2009

Political Party Lines: Everyone has it wrong.

The stances of both political parties on the issues of life and death fascinate me. How can someone say it's all right to kill a child ready for entry into this world, yet say it's wrong to kill a man who murdered children? That would be the "standard" liberal stance. Now, let us move stage right.

How can one say it's wrong to kill children ready for entry into this world, because all life is sacrosanct, yet say it's all right to kill a prisoner? That would be the "standard" conservative stance.

I have long struggled to connect the dots on both viewpoints. Indeed, I find the hypocrisy of both sides rather staggering. What is easy to understand, it seems to me, is why neither political party can make its case convincingly enough to persuade a sizable majority of Americans toward its view. They're both wrong.

Thus, I will now argue against the death penalty from, ironically enough, the most unlikely of political/philosophical viewpoints: Pro-Life. Shocked?

Let me make clear that I'm not here to argue abortion rights or limits - that's for another day, another subject. Rather, I'm here to argue that if you're pro-life, which probably (but not necessarily) makes you a conservative, you must be anti-death penalty, for to be otherwise is to be inconsistent. Before you take offense or get your hackles up, yes, you can reverse those stances and make the same argument against liberals.

Let me repeat: both sides have it wrong. The subject of this article, however, leads me to focus on the anti-death penalty argument.

I don't particularly want to get into a religious discussion here, though faith lies at the center of this debate. Rather, I'd like to challenge both sides to dig deep, to do that soul-searching, and to ask themselves the critical question. For conservatives: How can I reconcile my pro-life, pro-death penalty stance? For liberals: How can I reconcile my anti-death penalty, pro-abortion stance?

At this point, people do what people always do to justify an irrational position: they rationalize it. They twist it, turn it, run it through a torturous mental maze, until they convince themselves of the wisdom or their irrationality. Rationalization is one of the great driving forces of human existence, and on the subjects of life and death, if we even care, we engage in the process as true fanatics.

Do you really want the power to decide who lives and who dies? Are you prepared to stand as judge, jury and executioner? Where does that power start? More importantly, where does it end?

So what's my argument against the death penalty? I'm pro-life. Furthermore, I'm an equal opportunity pro-lifer. All life is sacrosanct, and it is not for me to decide who lives and who dies. And it is not for you, either. It is for whatever God you believe in, or nature itself, or the alignment of the stars, or sheer happenstance, or....

Well, it's not for any human being, for we humans are congenitally flawed. We simply don't possess the wisdom or the skill to make such decisions, for we make too many mistakes.

If we aspire to greater heights as a species, we must first agree that our species is so precious that it is worth preserving at all costs.

Both political parties have it wrong.

Learn more about this author, Lane Diamond.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.