Recently George Zornick's column addressed the politics of "death" ("November in April," April 6). Discussion points on human mortality and other issues surrounding death were found in Zornick's column and a conservative letter to the editor. Both accused the other of being contradictory and even hypocritical since supporting abortion and the "right" to die does not mesh with seeking to abolish the death penalty, and supporting the death penalty does not mesh with seeking to counteract abortion and the right to die.
However, these views can be reconciled through a different lens of control vs. choice. The conservative view seeks to control life (and death), whereas the liberal view seeks to offer a choice. Granted, in other areas the opposite is true, and liberals seek to control and conservatives seek choice. However, this lens is perhaps the most appropriate in this case since it gives a good foundation for genuine discussion and debate without resorting to emotional appeals regarding life and death. In such terms "life" is an obvious choice, but gets clouded because "life" is too vague, especially when considering issues of quality and dignity.
So, perhaps, the best question to ask and address when discussing these issues of "life and death" is not which side is right about who lives or dies and how, but rather the best question to ask is, "Who should be making these decisions, and why?"
Photo: Courtesy of SUNY
