Last week I had one of my classes break into groups and create a survey based on certain subjects (i.e. religion, politics, entertainment, etc…) The point was to get some statistics on the class and what things people had in common, what survey questions themselves were bad or biased, and to show what kinds of things a researcher needs to bear in mind when conducting research. During this activity the politics survey gave rise to an interesting statement about abortion…interesting because, on the surface, what was said seems to be a sound argument, but unfortunately fails to take into account an important underlying issue.

The suvey showed that most people in the class were for the death penalty, but against abortion. The person reporting this to the class made the statement, “This is kind of hypocritical. You want to kill those people but you don’t want anyone to have an abortion.”

Essentially her reasoning was:

These people are against abortion because it takes a life.
These same people for the death penalty.
The death penalty takes a life.
Therefore these people are a hypocrites.

The problem with this is that the issue isn’t simply the taking of life, but the unjustified taking of an innocent life versus the justified taking of a guilty life. I’m not sure what position the student making the accusation of hypocrisy stands on, but I think there are two prevailing positions. One position being that the lives of both the unborn and the death row inmate are just that, lives, and the other position being that the unborn is not a life and the inmate is one. It’s possible to hold the positions that the unborn is a life and the inmate isn’t, or that neither are lives, but I’ve never heard anyone making those claims.

Now, at this point the question becomes “Is it ever justified to take a life?” Of course, this entire discussion will eventually boil down to our assumptions about both lives (that of the unborn child and the death row inmate) and whether they are, in fact, lives. This is another issue for another post, and not the issue I’m trying to address now.

The only point I’m making is that it’s very easy to make a fine-sounding argument that can steer you in the wrong direction if you’re not thinking things through. In this case, it resulted in an accusation of hypocrisy against those who believe it’s okay to take the life of the guilty, but not the innocent, by failing to realize that the issue isn’t the taking of lives, but justice.