O'Malley Wants Maryland to Fail Basic Logic Test on Life

When Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley took office, in what seems like a hundred years ago, he stated that he was against the death penalty in Maryland.  Though the death penalty is totally legal in this state, he used the ruse of a "blue ribbon" commission to "study" the death penalty, and thus imposing a moratorium on executions.

Studying the impacts and effectiveness of executions is fine.  Temporarily suspending executions while the study is underway is fine, as well.  However, we are smart enough to know that there really hasn't been a commission studying the death penalty for 6 years.  He needed a reason to suspend the executions and he wants us to believe that he halted executions to study them.  False.

Now, O'Malley is formally pushing the Maryland General Assembly to pass a law banning the death penalty in Maryland.  And thus, our failure.  Not sure what the failure is?  Well then follow this.

We, as citizens of Maryland, must consistently apply the law.  Laws sometimes apply to different scenarios.  However, to apply the law differently to different scenarios is, in my opinion, a basic logic failure.  This is an incredibly touchy subject as many people will disagree with me. I like to compare the death penalty with abortion.  My liberal lawyer friends tell me that I must treat each of these individually and evaluate them each under their own merit and applications of the law.  I tell them that they are wrong.  I can evaluate and compare them any way I want.

Here are the four combinations of logic for abortion and the death penalty:

1) We, as a society can place a value on human life and apply it consistently.  We can say that we have little regard for human life and declare that we have the right to end human lives as we see fit.  For example, if a person is convicted of killing another person, that killer can be put to death.  We can also say that we, or more specifically women, have the right to end the life of an unborn child.  If you're like Carol Burnett, you can pretend that humans are not alive until they are born.  However, if you an educated person, you know that the fetus is alive, though dependent on its mother for survival.  Some will argue that if the child cannot survive on its own, then it's not truly living yet.  I respond that a child cannot live on its own even after it is born.  Regardless on your opinion on each, the logic argument on the termination of life is consistent, thus passing the logic test.

2) The second logic test is that all human life is equally important and thus should not be ended by another human.  Crazy people who hack up children in a school should not be executed, nor should any child be aborted.  This argument is also valid.  All life is respected and the value of life logic is applied consistently.

3) The third argument is that the death penalty is acceptable and abortion is not unacceptable.  Although not consistent in determining the value of life, we are saying that the lives of unborn children should be protected as they are innocent of any crime.  Supporting the death penalty, on the other hand, states that criminals should pay the price for their crime.  If they take the life of another person, then the law of "eye for an eye" is applied and they pay the penalty.  As stated, this argument is not consistent, but I think it passes the test of achieving the moral higher ground.

4) The last argument, and the one supported by Martin O'Malley, is the logic test that can only be considered a failure.  In Maryland abortion is legal and readily available.  Teenagers do not need parental consent to get an abortion.  They do need, however, parental consent to get their teeth cleaned at the dentist.  Now Maryland wants to get rid of the death penalty.  What Martin O'Malley is telling us, and the whole nation as he moves closer to officially declaring his bid for the presidency, is that the lives of criminals should be protected, but the lives of unborn children should not.  Perhaps he thinks that if there are more abortions, there will be fewer children in poverty, fewer children born to drug addicts, and fewer children that will grow up only to be old enough to be gunned down in the unstoppable gun war happening on the streets of Maryland.  The conclusion then is that innocent lives are not protected and guilty lives are protected.  The law protecting life is thus applied inconsistently, in addition to being applied in an illogical manner.

So as you can clearly see, and the only conclusion that I can deduce, is that Martin O'Malley hates unborn children and loves people convicted of murder.  Why else would he push for laws protecting one group and other laws leaving the helpless victims to die?