Opinion
A Person is A Person,No Exceptions
by Laura Surma
Opinions Staff

Normally, controversial political issues seem deceptively cut-and-dry: there are two diametrically opposed positions with little room in between for diplomatic discourse. Still more tragically, however, those within each of these polar communities often fail to understand the nuances of their arguments, producing charged platforms without realizing their potential for common understanding.

The multi-faceted pro-life position espoused by California Students for Life (CASTL) and Stanford Students for Life (SSFL) at the second annual Celebrate Life Conference earlier this month is worthy, then, of some careful consideration. Both CASTL and SSFL are "dedicated to protecting the right to life from conception to natural death," which includes opposing all social practices and political policies that infringe upon the fundamental right to life--including euthanasia, dubious scientific research, and the death penalty.

It is our natural inclination to classify all anti-abortion events immediately with the overly simplified dogma of conservative philosophy. The Celebrate Life Conference, however, gives us pause to reconsider the meaning of the word pro-life. It sounds like a liberal act to protest capital punishment. Such an interpretation of pro-life may have even discouraged some of us conservatives from attending the conference; I know that I certainly gave it a second thought.

The conference platform brought to mind the fact that contemporary political boundaries are incongruous with the pro-life position. Democrats are generally pro-abortion and anti-death penalty while Republicans are generally anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. Where, then, does the pro-life position fall?

I have never doubted my opposition to abortion, but the larger question is one with which I constantly struggle. Can I call myself conservative if I am anti-death penalty? Can I consider myself liberal if I am anti-abortion? Can I be both anti-abortion and pro-death penalty? Most importantly, if I don't particularly mind capital punishment, am I truly pro-life?

I can superficially resolve the conflict between my desires to be anti-abortion and pro-death penalty by saying that convicted murderers are much more deserving of death than innocent unborn children. Honestly, that's probably what keeps conservatives going, especially because it's true.

Call me cold-hearted, but I believe in the United States justice system, and I frankly can't muster quite as much sympathy for convicted killers executed by capital punishment as I can for innocent babies slaughtered through abortion. It's interesting that liberals oppose the death penalty as a deterrent of crime when they defend abortion rights by saying that unwanted children are more likely to end up as wayward citizens. At least we conservatives give criminals the time to make the choice for themselves. In addition, capital punishment is simply practical.

The problem, however, is the definition of the term 'pro-life.' I have always considered myself pro-life, and I believe that most anti-abortion conservatives would say the same of themselves. When I think about what being conservative means to me, the two words that come to mind are 'principle' and 'morality' (both of which disgust die-hard liberals). As a conservative, I don't look at issues on a case-by-case basis, but through a lens that analyzes what my positions mean in terms of the grand scheme of things. Democratic laws work through compromise, so it's natural for the country to have some silly combinations of laws, but there's no reason why I should personally harbor such inane imbalances.

I believe that one of the most empowering strengths of the conservative policy is the sense of principle and morality that I derive from my beliefs. In order to maintain this strength, I feel that I must therefore resolve the lack of principle by which my conservative stance opposes abortion and embraces capital punishment.

Abortion is indeed the most important pro-life issue to address, and I think that the Celebrate Life Conference perhaps focused too little on abortion itself, but the strength of the Celebrate Life Conference was its unity of position. The California Students for Life stand for life in all forms, so regardless of whether or not you agree with the group, it is completely infeasible to find fault with the consistency demonstrated by the group's principles. Abortion, euthanasia, questionable scientific research, and the death penalty all undoubtedly tamper with natural life.

Conservatives need to tap into the source of strength derived from such a unity of position. Let's reconsider our stance on the death penalty and stand fully behind our pro-life principle.

If conservatives and liberals were to reanalyze their positions simultaneously in terms of consistency and were to resolve discrepancies in their abortion and capital-punishment policies, I think that they would both end up at a position that mirrors the definition of pro-life represented at the Celebrate Life Conference. Could the pro-life position perhaps be a bridge between liberals and conservatives? Could it perhaps unify our country in a way we've never seen? We have witnessed quite an increase in anti-abortion sentiment in the last decade, so I would encourage us to try.

Dr. Seuss once wrote, "A person is a person, no matter how small." Let's not forget that a person is also a person, no matter how big.

Page last modified on Thursday, 02-Mar-2006 00:22:40 MST.