Almost, But Not Quite...

In the general vein of becoming "vegan" for Lent (even though she's "not very religious") we find this:

My colleague Graeme Wood suggests that we should harvest the organs of executed criminals. His argument is surprisingly persuasive, for all that I am against the death penalty. But in the end, I hesitate to give the state, or juries, a compelling additional reason to kill a man.

If she's opposed to execution, why is organ harvesting so "additionally compelling?" Would arguing that even be allowed? (W/ the current Supreme Court, it just might.) Gawd.

Of course, mealy-mouthed phrasing like "for all that I am against the death penalty," provides an easy out. There may not be much "all" there.

And "kill a man?" Women aren't executed any more?