Sacrifice the Value of a Human Life to Convenience (2)
Yesterday, August 6th, is a day 60 years ago, we remember as the day when the United States exploded an atomic bomb over Hiroshima. This act and the act a few days later of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, appears to me an example of sacrificing the value of human life, hundreds of thousands, for convenience. Perhaps you may find the term “convenience” is not appropriate but I think it is. The U.S. government gave the excuse that the atomic bombing was the quickest way to end World War II and prevent the deaths of U.S. soldiers in an invasion of Japan. In this regard, it was “convenient” that there was an atomic bomb that could be put into use. Convenient that using this weapon invasion might not be necessary. And after Nagasaki, Japan promptly surrendered.
Each of lives taken at the moment of the explosions and those who died later from the effects of the blasts and the radiation sickness and cancers that followed already had a history and established values that were sacrificed. Were these sacrificings for a cause the same as preventing implantation of a fertilized ovum or the death of a frozen embryonic cell cluster? I think not. The morality of a woman sacrificing potential human life, yet unborn for her purpose is quite different than society finding a rational purpose to kill those already born and living. ..Maurice.
posted by Maurice Bernstein, M.D. @ 6:46:00 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
I find the death penalty to fall within this category of convenience. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 38 US States currently allow the death penalty and thirty people have been executed this year. Are these people not valuable? They are humans? If I must value the cluster of cells of a would-be human, shouldn’t I also value the life of an adult person, regardless of his/her behavior? It seems to me that the execution of violent offenders is an act of convenience. It is no longer deemed possible to rehabilitate these people, so they are simply removed from humanity.
I am quite frustrated when I hear people who oppose abortion/destruction of embryos defending the death penalty using contradictory moral ideas. Embryonic stem cell research is often opposed on the grounds that the destruction of lives to save the lives of others is inappropriate. The rationale that is often used is that by executing violent offenders, it ultimately saves the lives of others. I am particularly frustrated by the comments of President Bush on these topics. A chart of his remarks can be found here.
Alyssa, I thoroughly agree with your comments about the death penalty as an example in this discussion. I had first thought that use of the death penalty was convenient in monetary cost terms, costing less than the cost of a life-term in prison. On reading up on the matter, it appears that it does cost twice as much or more to execute a prisoner than to provide care until a natural death. However, certainly the death penalty is more convenient than the responsibilities of maintaining the prisoner for life.
Thank you for the link to Slade. It is unbelievably ironic, inconsistent and I think irrational the position the President takes on the matter of embryonic stem cell research vs the death penalty.
And his comment in April of this year: "I happen to believe that the death penalty, when properly applied, saves lives of others." But what if even on one occasion the death penalty is not "properly applied" and an innocent is killed by the state? (There is documentatin that this has happened more than just once.) Would the President be as active in acting on that death as he seem to have been involved in the destruction of an "innocent" embryo?
And why couldn't he say regarding embryonic stem cell research "I believe that embryonic stem cell research, properly applied, saves the life of others"? I am sure he will never say this because it will not be "politically convenient". ..Maurice.
If you ever have a chance to read or see the play Exonerated, I highly recommend it. Here is a link to the book.
I saw the show last year and was blown away. It is based on the testemony and court cases of a variety of wrongly convicted death row inmates who were ultimately exonerated. Many of them lost decades of their lives. This spirit of the law is that it is better for ten people to go free than for one innocent person to be convicted, yet this play shows that this is not always the case.
Post a Comment
<< Home