The "Paul Hill" Entry

I had expected to get some comments on the "Paul Hill" poem which appears on Thus Sept 4. Comments on the Poetry Espresso e-list suggest that it's simply not that good a poem, and therefore not worthy of comment. There also seemed to be some confusion as to the political position taken by the narrative voice.

So, I'll address the political issues in as straight-forward a manner as I can at this hour.

First — the death penalty. I am not aware of any statistics which clearly indicate that the death penalty is a deterent for any crime. Mr Hill being a notable exception, the death penalty is most commonly enforced on minorities and the poor — which suggests a basic inequality in the system.

Given that the death penalty does not appear to be a deterent, there would seem to be two reasons to enforce it: economic and/or revenge. Of the two, I suspect most people support the death penalty as a way of restoring social order. That is to say, some seem to believe social equalibrium is restored when the state murders the murderer. The difference between this and revenge, or "an eye for an eye" seems to be negligible, at best.

I suppose I would be slightly more sympathetic to the argument that it's cheaper to kill the murderer than it is to warehouse him or her until death comes naturally. I still wouldn't support the death penalty, but at least the argument has a degree of logical consistency.

About abortion — this is a much more complicated issue. I'll admit up front that my position on this issue is as "emotional" as those on the pro-life side.

What seems to be at stake are the competing rights of the potential life of the foetus versus the existing life of the mother. Then the question becomes whether the state has the authority or the right to coerce a mother to bring a foetus to term regardless of the circumstances of conception (i.e., various forms of rape including incest).

When considering the potential life of the foetus, we must ask at what point life begins. In the Roe v Wade decision, the Supreme Court essentially set the bar at the third trimester, a choice which was based on the best medical knowledge of the time. Subsequent science suggests that a foetus is viable some time before that three month mark.

Based on my current knowledge, I do not believe life begins at conception. It is possible life begins prior to that 3-month mark, but I lack the information to make that call at that time.

For me the basic question is by what authority does the state define the beginning of life?

I would suggest that the state has no more authority to define the beginning of life than it has to enforce the end of life. And even as I say that, I want to admit exceptions for the latter point — e.g., in the event of war. On the whole, however, I do not believe the state needs to be in the business of defining life at either end.