In terms of 1) Various surveys have show a much higher percentage of Amercians consider a personal relationship with god a priority in their life, compared to most of the rich countries. (Note to Carroll -- "rich" is an extremely unambiguous term compared to "industrialized".) Generally, this level of *personal* (as opposed to institutional) religious committment is usually found in only the poorest and most miserable of nations.
2) As to the moral basis:
I would say it is pretty unambiguous. A) executions
1) The problem of uncertainty -- in addition to actual injustices in our system , even a far more just system than our would still make mistakes. It is hard to release or compensate someone who is dead.
2) The moral argument for the death penalty based on the value of human life is pretty obviously invalid. At least it cannot be about justice. Hanging and electrocution do not begin to compare to the pain most murders of the type you would consider deserving of execution cause their victims. Even if they were tortured to the point that they suffered for the same length of time, by doing the things they have done they have ensured that their suffering would not be the equivalent of the suffering of their victims. In other words for cetain crimes justice is not possible. Thus the only question is how to separate this type of murder from society so that no one else becomes a victim. Life imprisonment without possiblity of parole does this as effectively and more cheaply than execution.
I have to admit that my opposition to the death penalty is not based upon the above "rational" arguments but on some instinct against deliberately killing someone, no matter how monsterous, when there is a reasonable alternative. In other words, I have no objection the right of self-defenses in all it's forms, but once a monster is captured, and society can be protected by safely imprisoning him or her -- I simply cannot bring myself to support killing the person instead.
Abortion: The biological evidence is that a baby does not become fully human until a month after birth (in terms of being able to think at the human level). However when drawing lines of this type it is always best to err on the side of safety. Thus allowing abortion only so long as the baby is actually in contact with mothers womb, and considering it a crime once the baby is completely outside it is good safe line drawing.
I will add (I suspect that Jim Heartfield can confirm) that in Britain you will find killing of a baby by a mother immediately following birth is quite often treated as a psychological rather than criminal matter.
-- Gar W. Lipow 815 Dundee RD NW Olympia, WA 98502 http://www.freetrain.org/