The slippery slope has always been, when is capital punishment justified? Each state that has sanctioned capital punishment, and the federal government in it's sanction, has a different definition, set of applying circumstances, and proscription policy. So, as with many things, it's a matter of geography and jurisdiction that determines whether a state execution can be conducted.

"Murder" itself is even segmented as to when, who, how and to what circumstance. Kidnapping, treason, desertion and espionage still stand as capital crimes. So, it becomes a matter of "public policy" by geography when the state can take a life.

So, we take it in the first trimester, no problem; the second trimester, some angst, but still done; the third trimester, questionable; the day after six-weeks premature (still third trimester), that's murder; assisted suicide, okay in Washington State, Oregon and Montana, but murder elsewhere. Shades of "Logan's Run" as to when the next state-directed circumstance shall be.

Humankind has wrestled with this issue all over the globe and has tried to intellectualize state-condoned killings in a myriad of ways, situations, reasonings and rationales. There was a time in this country when horse-thievery and cattle rustling were capital offenses, along with several other actions now considered, at best, grand larceny. After all these attempts to refine our definitions, we still flounder around, wordsmithing it all.

Perhaps, we just aren't smart enough to make the right decison.......