In our moral discourse today, confusion has become a virtue and clarity a crime. We are told that to be truly pro-life, one must oppose the death penalty, embrace open borders, and dismantle systems of lawful justice. Recently, the new pope reiterated this sentiment, suggesting that those who oppose abortion but support the death penalty or strict immigration policies are inconsistent. The claim may sound compassionate on the surface, but beneath its pious veneer lies a profound misunderstanding of justice, morality, and human agency.
Let us be clear: there is a world of moral difference between the willful taking of innocent life and the just punishment of a guilty individual. To equate abortion, the destruction of a defenseless unborn child, with the lawful execution of a convicted murderer is not only illogical but spiritually misleading. The same God who commanded, “Thou shalt not kill,” also ordained systems of justice to punish wrongdoing (Romans 13:4). Justice is not the enemy of mercy; it is the guardrail that allows mercy to have meaning.
The False Moral Equation
The heart of the modern confusion lies in a false moral equivalence. It assumes that every act resulting in death is morally identical. But morality is not measured merely by outcome, it is defined by intent, agency, and justice. A mother who loses her child to miscarriage is not the same as a doctor who ends a pregnancy by force. A soldier defending his nation is not morally equal to a terrorist who kills the innocent. Likewise, the lawful punishment of a murderer is not the same as the willful killing of an unborn child.
When the Church or its leaders blur these distinctions, they do not advance compassion, they advance confusion. And confusion in moral matters is dangerous, because it numbs the conscience and weakens our collective will to defend the innocent.
The Innocent and the Guilty
The unborn child has committed no crime. He or she is the very definition of innocence, a life dependent, voiceless, and full of potential. The convicted murderer, by contrast, has acted with deliberate agency to deprive another human being of life. The difference between the two is not marginal, it is moral and categorical.
The pro-life ethic is built on the sanctity of innocent life, not the preservation of life in the abstract. To say that one must oppose all forms of death to be consistent is to misunderstand the moral foundation of life itself. Justice, rightly applied, affirms the value of life by holding accountable those who destroy it. It says, in effect: life is sacred, and therefore taking it unjustly has consequences.
The Purpose of Justice
The death penalty, when used sparingly and judiciously, is not an act of vengeance, it is an act of moral clarity. It acknowledges the inherent dignity of both victim and perpetrator by recognizing that human choices have moral weight. A society that never punishes the gravest of crimes risks becoming a society that no longer believes in moral consequence.
Now, there are valid arguments against the death penalty, arguments of prudence, not morality. One might argue that it fails as a deterrent, or that it imposes unnecessary costs on the state. Those are debates worth having. But to equate the execution of a convicted murderer with the slaughter of an unborn child is to confuse justice with evil, and punishment with murder.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Willful Positivity to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.