When my Catholic school talked about abortion, they talked about the sanctity of life. They said that you can't pick and choose when to value life, basically. And that if you wanted to be pro-life, you also needed to be against the death penalty and other things.
I am not sure I agree with some of their arguments - mostly about end of life. I can't help feeling that the last round of chemo hastened my Mom's end, and that quality of life matters. That, for example, if you can't survive without life support that extending your misery for a few days with life support isn't really worth it, but at least their arguments are consistent.
Which is part of why I find it fascinating when 'pro-life' people also support the death penalty. Seems they don't really agree with that argument.
Anyways, to get back to Charlie Kirk's assassination. The point I was trying to make with my earlier post is that you have to be consistent. That if assassination and murder is bad, it's bad in every case. All the time.
It's bad when it's Minnesota legislators.
It's bad when it's school children.
And when we've created a callous society that shrugs and moves on when those people are murdered, it seems inconsistent to suddenly be upset and start caring just because it was a right wing influencer.
I said that if you actually cared about his death that you wouldn't want to escalate things... but that's not quite true.
Or rather, given some of what Charlie Kirk has said... maybe he actually wanted to escalate the violence, even if it meant his own death?
I personally find it hard to believe. I think it was probably more along the lines of 'it's okay for other people to die, but not me'... but I can't claim to know him that well. Given what he said about the 2nd amendment, maybe he'd understand that his own death was also worth it.
Still, the outrage feels fake. Feels more like people are just upset when the natural consequences of their positions affect people they actually care about.
