The failure to execute sadistic killer Michael Morales points out an interesting ethical paradox. There are persons who oppose both capital punishment and abortion on deman with equal fervor. Their morality is seamless and is deserving of respect even if we fight to giving them their way. One may support both captal punishment and abortion on demand without showing any sign of hypocrisy.
But what about the split decisions? One can oppose abortion (the killing of innocents on a wholesale basis) yet approve of the most severe punishment of the most evil members of society on rational grounds. But how can one explain the mindset of those who think of a late term abortion of a secular sacrament but sing hymns and weep as a torturer of innocents or a serial killer gets the needle? This must be a progressive thing and an abiding faith in a party line that was once the hallmark of a surviving Stalinists.
As for those in the medical profession who avoid assistence in executions, note that one of the more recent intercontinental serial killers had ‘MD’ after his name. Dr. (‘Double O’) Swango killed dozens of patients (and made attempts on the lives of associates) but was protected by his fellow practitioners. Quite a few nurses attemted to raise alarms but they are not of sufficient rank to have credible opinions of their betters.
Perhaps the State of California should have searched the abortion clinics for an MD willing to help flush the toilet of justice.