(KMTR) — Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber has imposed a moratorium on the death penalty for the remainder of his term, saying he’s morally opposed to the capital punishment and has long regretted allowing two men to be executed in the 1990s…
[A]nd both voluntarily waived their appeals.
When I saw this bit of news scrawling at the foot of GMA this morning my thoughts immediately focused on one thing: hypocrisy. You see, I didn’t even know who the Governor of Oregon was, or his political affiliation (the ticker simply read something to the effect of: Oregon Gov. issues executive order ending the death penalty on moral grounds). But there is one thing I knew for sure, hypocrisy would be oozing from the Governor him/herself, or political activists, or both.
My first inkling was: how would the media be reporting a story of a Governor who issued an executive order prohibiting abortion because he or she was morally opposed to it? After all, the death penalty is legal in Oregon — not just legal, but re-instituted by the will of the people‡ to be the law of the land. So the cry of abortion is legal is moot. Every time a conservative legislature and Governor signs into law more restrictions on abortion (which usually amounts to requiring the mother to be fully informed to what it is she is doing and what an abortion actually does) abortion activists come out of the woodwork lamenting the fascist theocracy being imposed on women. Even members of the United States Congress portray the legislation as conservatives wanting to see women die on the floor. Any restriction on abortion is seen as an attack on women, just think what would happen if a Republican simply overturned laws protecting mother’s ability to abort?
I also had my suspicions that the Oregon Governor was going to be a Democrat, and that Democrat would support abortion. I wish I could tell my readers I was wrong, but I can’t — so that once in a lifetime event will have to wait. From Real Clear Politics —
[While campaigning] Oregon Democratic gubernatorial candidate John Kitzhaber…opened and closed his remarks by addressing a topic that has not come up nearly as often in this election cycle: abortion.
“He wants to restrict a woman’s right to choice,” Kitzhaber said of his Republican opponent, Chris Dudley.
Kitzhaber told RealClearPolitics, “I do think this is a state that has always protected a whole range of reproductive services, so I do think that’s an important issue.”
What were the restrictions Kitzhaber is charging of his opponent? Well, Dudley is pro-choice but opposes late-term abortion and supports parental notification. Basically, Kitzhaber believes even practically fully developed children should be open for termination, and your 15 year-old daughter should be able to secure an abortion without your knowing. It’s simply unconscionable.
I am never amazed at the positions liberals take. They strive to prevent murderous rapists from receiving their due justice after a trial for their crimes. But push equally as hard to prevent any hinderance to the killing of untold numbers of children in the womb. In fact anything that might reduce the number of abortion is considered a virtual human rights violation (See: What Gives You The Right?).
The entire liberal life/death paradigm is backwards.
_______________________________
‡ A strong majority of the American population believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.
Sifting Reality 
Kitzhaber has the same speech disorder that other pro-aborts have: He can’t finish a sentence: “He wants to restrict a woman’s right to choice” — but a choice to what? Whom to marry? What career to choose? Where to work?
No, the choice to have her innocent son or daughter killed. Oh, just that!
Same thing with the “reproductive services” sound bite. Abortion has nothing to do with reproductive services. Those are about birth control. Abortion kills a human being who has already been reproduced. That’s a scientific fact.
Excellent point on the moratorium and consistency. It is just like Obama not defending the Defense of Marriage Act because there “might” be problems with it. Imagine what would have happened if Bush had done that with Roe v Wade, and with much better justification!
Its not that “the ends justifies the means” is always a bad way to go about moral issues, but it seems that with liberals the ends always justify the means. So while they would demand federal indictments on conservatives for such a move, for them they are so right that it doesn’t matter how you get there.
I agree, Neil. Anytime someone brings up abortion, I think we should guide the conversation so that people must admit that it IS murder. It’s so easy to pass off “Abortion”, but “Murder of a baby” is a different story. Same event, but linguistically and psychologically it a much easier pill to swallow when we use “Politically Correct” (See: Watered-down/Dishonest) language.
So do you find capital punishment ethical or not? In my view capital punishment is based on the same rules like imprisoning – you still take away a human right from a person; wether it is freedom or life is still the same. So if we, as societies, have given ourselves the right to take freedom away, what is the difference with life?