A Paradox Within the Pro-Life View

[Tyler]

In general, is Catholic Pro-Lifism (a term I hereby coin) pragmatic or absolute?

Allow me to explain. The Catholic.com guide to voting, along with corrollaries provided, clearly delineates four issues that defend life. However, much ado has been made out of the absence of one of the most obvious ones (which conveniently doesn’t align with a certain party), Capital Punishment.

According to the aforementioned special discussion (sorry I cannot provide a link), the Catechism has no definitive teaching on Capital Punishment. It cannot yet decide whether the act of murder is worth the “preventative” value of somehow saving lives. Seemingly, this creates a major hole in the pro-life view. The Church here effectively states that the taking of one life is merited if more can be saved. The ends, then, justify the means.

Furthermore, the “non-negotiable” issues ignore dozens of other fatal issues that happen to fall unfavorably along party lines. Unjust war is an unforgivable crime, and the ignorance of poverty is as well. The response I have been given to this has been that abortion kills thousands of times as many people than the death penalty. Unfortunately, this statement puts a priority on life. It speaks to the “greater good,” which is something that the Catholic Church avoids addressing. Effectively, the magnitude of abortion merits the full efforts of pro-lifers at the expense of dying Muslims and criminals. However, by this reasoning, embryonic stem-cell research should be encouraged, because by ignoring a few lives, millions can be saved. The promises of science are no more unlikely than the immediate overturning of Roe vs. Wade.

Seemingly, there are two different views at play here. On the one hand, many take the stance that condoning any sort of killing is wrong. However, these people carry in themselves an intrinsic contradiction. By devoting their time and votes to a handful of imperative issues, they still allow millions of lives to fall by the wayside. An FAQ to the voting guide highlights that if there are no good options, tolerating a lesser evil is acceptable ONLY if it replaces a greater evil. Although this may be wise, it undermines the original standpoint of avoiding evil altogether.

An the other hand, many moderates argue that the greater good should be sought, and that abortion should be fought because it kills more than any other problem. However, by this logic, as I have previously stated, embryonic stem cell research becomes laudable. The only way out is with absolutism, which is also contradictive. A viscious cycle presents itself.

As far as I can see, this is the dilemma presented to modern pro-lifers. There must exist an answer, and I believe all Catholics deserve to hear it. Thank you all for your time.

 

[adrift]

Tyler.

I disagree with some of your statements.

According to the aforementioned special discussion (sorry I cannot provide a link), the Catechism has no definitive teaching on Capital Punishment

christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/fifth.html#FIFTH

2266 The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67]

Sounds definitive to me

Unjust war is an unforgivable crime, and the ignorance of poverty is as well.

Says who???

 

[StCsDavid]

Tyler:

According to the aforementioned special discussion (sorry I cannot provide a link), the Catechism has no definitive teaching on Capital Punishment.

Not true. Look at 2266 and 2267. The Church is very definitive in this regard. One it gives government the right to use capital punishment, but it adds the caveat that this a punishment in essense one of last resort if there is not other way to protect the community at large.

Tyler:

Furthermore, the “non-negotiable” issues ignore dozens of other fatal issues that happen to fall unfavorably along party lines.

So you posit then that the Catholic Church is simply waging a politcal battle in it’s pro-life point of view. To what end?

Tyler:

Seemingly, there are two different views at play here. On the one hand, many take the stance that condoning any sort of killing is wrong. However, these people carry in themselves an intrinsic contradiction. By devoting their time and votes to a handful of imperative issues, they still allow millions of lives to fall by the wayside.

Propose a solution that protects all life in all situations. I doubt that you can. We can however, work to protect the most innocent and vulnerable of our society. Why is that not worthy of our efforts?

Tyler:

An the other hand, many moderates argue that the greater good should be sought, and that abortion should be fought because it kills more than any other problem. However, by this logic, as I have previously stated, embryonic stem cell research becomes laudable. The only way out is with absolutism, which is also contradictive. A viscious cycle presents itself.

I don’t see how you connect the dots on this argument. In general you seem to be saying that unless we can protect all life…none should be protected.

As far as I can see, this is the dilemma presented to modern pro-lifers. There must exist an answer, and I believe all Catholics deserve to hear it. Thank you all for your time. No offense, buy I haven’t run into any pro-lifers that are conflicted as you seem to think we should be. This isn’t a political game for me. Life is way more than just an intellectual exercise. Abortion kills innocent lives. If I have two candidates to choose from and one says it’s okay to kill the innocent and one says it’s not…guess who gets my vote? I have no conflicts there.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Tyler:

The Church here effectively states that the taking of one life is merited if more can be saved.

No, the Church definitely does not say this.

Tyler:

The ends, then, justify the means.

No. The ends never justify the means. The means are important.

What you are talking about is Double Effect. In the case, for instance, of Capital Punishment you have one action which has two effects:

1. preventing the innocent from being killed by someone who has already committed murder; and
2. killing the person who has already committed murder.

Note – in passing – the distinction between the term ‘kill’ and the term ‘murder.’

To assess the licitness of the action, it is necessary to run it through five tests:

For the act in question to be licit, all Five Tests for Double Effect must be met.

The First Test for Double Effect

1. The object of the act must not be intrinsically contradictory to one’s fundamental commitment to God and neighbor (including oneself), that is, it must be a good action judged by its moral object (in other words, the action must not be intrinsically evil);

The object consists of the behavior and the proximate intent (or direct intent) inherent in the action under consideration.

The Second Test for Double Effect

1. The direct intention of the agent must be to achieve the beneficial effects and to avoid the foreseen harmful effects as far as possible, that is, one must only indirectly intend the harm;

The Third Test for Double Effect

1. The foreseen beneficial effects must not be achieved by means of the foreseen harmful effects, when no other means of achieving those effects are available;

The Fourth Test for Double Effect

**4. The foreseen beneficial effects must be equal to or greater than the foreseen harmful effects (the proportionate judgment);

*The Fifth Test for Double Effect

*5. The beneficial effects must follow from the action at least as immediately as do the harmful effects.

 

[John_Taylor]

In general, is Catholic Pro-Lifism (a term I hereby coin) pragmatic or absolute?

It’s absolute. The direct and unjust killing of an innocent human being is not permitted under any circumstance.

The Catholic.com guide to voting…clearly delineates four issues that defend life. However, much ado has been made out of the absence of one…Capital Punishment.

The Church has always upheld the right of the State to inflict capital punishment. The “power of the sword” belongs to the State:

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong…For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:3-4)

…the Catechism has no definitive teaching on Capital Punishment. It cannot yet decide whether the act of murder is worth the “preventative” value of somehow saving lives.

The putting to death of a convicted criminal is not murder. It is capital punishment. You’re mixing apples and oranges.

Seemingly, this creates a major hole in the pro-life view.

The Church has and always will recognize the right of the State to “bear the sword” to punish evil-doers. What’s questioned is whether such conditions exist now among modern societies that life long incarceration of the convicted criminal is adequate to safeguard society.

The Church here effectively states that the taking of one life is merited if more can be saved.

This is not a question of “the ends justifying the means”. In the case of capital punishment we are (supposedly) dealing with convicted criminals. Assuming their guilt, the taking of their life is not unjust when carried out by the State.

Furthermore, the “non-negotiable” issues ignore dozens of other fatal issues that happen to fall unfavorably along party lines…Unjust war…ignorance of poverty…

The Church condemns an unjust war the same as it condemns the unjust killing of the unborn. What needs to be determined is whether or not a war is unjust. That can be debated.

…two different views at play here. On the one hand, many take the stance that condoning any sort of killing is wrong. However, these people carry in themselves an intrinsic contradiction. By devoting their time and votes to a handful of imperative issues, they still allow millions of lives to fall by the wayside…it undermines the original standpoint of avoiding evil altogether.

Well…as I see it, millions are tangibly put to death by abortion. The unborn are innocent so abortion must be stopped.

Convicted criminals are (presumably) not innocent, therefore capital punishment is not murder…but don’t get me wrong…for reasons other than saying “capital punishment is murder” I oppose capital punishment (it’s imposed inequitably along racial lines and some are wrongly accused).

The lives of possibly millions may be saved or helped by cures discovered by experimenting with the murdered bodies of the unborn - but such science is not proven (the way the harm done to the unborn through abortion can be “proven”) and ALSO the science exists - and is just as promising - of advancing cures through experimentation with ADULT stem cells, or stem cells gathered from afterbirth - so let’s achieve the “common good” by following moral means, not immoral ones.

And with regards to an unjust war - it should be opposed the same as abortion. But if it comes down to choosing “the lesser of two evils”, until the unjust killing inflicted by an unjust war exceeds the MILLIONS of unjust killing inflicted through abortion the choice is a no-brainer. At least in any war, the attacked can find ways to defend themselves.

As far as I can see, this is the dilemma presented to modern pro-lifers. There must exist an answer, and I believe all Catholics deserve to hear it.

I fail to see the dilemma. As Catholics we oppose the unjust taking of life. With abortion there is no question that an injustice is being done. With regard to Stem Cell Research there is a clear injustice. With regard to Capital Punishment and War there may or may not be a clear cut injustice involved…it requires investigation into the particulars of each instance to decide…and if seen to be unjust, then, “Yes”, an unjust execution and an unjust war is to be opposed as strongly as abortion. But if one political party champions the death of millions while another political party only champions the deaths of thousands - and it’s a sad situation that there’s not a political party that sees clear to champion the life for all - then the lesser of two evils may be our only choice…at least for me and my conscience, the choice is clear.

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[Aaron_I]

I have heard many Catholics use similar language in defending a Democrat vote. Not to say that a Democrat vote is inherently wrong, (There’s likely to be no problem in the local government as important moral issues don’t usually come up), but a vote for any candidate who supports abortion is almost always sinful.

I will begin by addressing the life issues that tend to get ignored. Capital punishment, while wrong in nearly all cases, cannot be universally condemned for the same reason that war cannot be universally condemned. That being said, I do not believe that an instance of necessity can exist in the US. The only purpose of the death penalty here is vengeance, and that is wrong. I like to use a line from Too Late the Phalarope, “If a man takes unto himself God’s right to punish, then he must also take upon himself God’s promise to restore.” Although I agree that Capital Punishment is wrong it is not a non-negotiable issue and cannot be binding. You are free to vote using this issue as a guide, but only after all non-negotiable issues have first been resolved.

Another issue mentioned is the unjust war. Frankly I don’t see it as unjust, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion. In most cases you would also be able to vote on that opinion. As it is; however, you would be ignoring something the Church tells you is always objectively wrong (abortion) and instead worrying about what you yourself consider to be wrong.

Poverty can in no way be compared with abortion. One involves a decreased quality of life whereas the other takes it away. There are many people who would rather die than have a lower quality life (the justification for the Terri Schiavo incident), but this has never coincided with Catholic teaching. One fun excercise in equating poverty and abortion is to imagine yourself voting between Lincoln and Douglas. Only a member of the KKK would look back now and say that they would vote for Douglas; the stigma against slavery is just way too huge. But the logic you present would have had no trouble at the time in voting for Douglas. Slavery was the backbone of the South’s economy, and promoting the economy could possibly have served as the “moral” defense of someone who considered slavery to be wrong but wouldn’t make it an issue in the campaign. Also, placing a program such as wellfare higher than abortion is nothing more than guaranteeing people’s right to property above their right for life. I do not mean to take away from the rights of the poor, but frankly if you believe in a Democrat economy wait until they have their moral issues straightened out first.

Hopefully my arguments are at least somewhat effective, but if nothing else at least understand that only issues such as embryonic stem cell research and abortion are universally unacceptable and only they (and the other issues defined by the Church) MUST be universally rejected. Ultimately, there is no contradiction in choosing the lesser of two evils. The point is that the evil cannot be avoided. This is also the premise behind the just war theory.

This is my first real post, so I am sure I made some mistakes. I’m sorry to have made such a long response, but there were a lot of issues brought up, and nothing is worse than making a point without explaining it. Lastly, I hope the slavery reference doesn’t offend anyone. Basically I was trying to correlate slavery with abortion (something I find effective as both seek to deny the personhood of another). Slavery lasted as long as it did by people’s adherence to political pragmatism. This began with our Founding Fathers (making the 3/5 Compromise instead of forcing the issue) and continued in the form of self-serving men who would rather deny people their rights than harm their income. Justice must be stressed above all in government, and when the judicial branch fails as it too often does, it is up to us to restore it.

Hopefully this answers your questions, Tyler. Feel free to ask questions in response to my post, and I’ll do my best to address them. Hopefully in less than seven paragraphs.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

John Taylor:

But if one political party champions the death of millions while another political party only champions the deaths of thousands - and it’s a sad situation that there’s not a political party that sees clear to champion the life for all - then the lesser of two evils may be our only choice…at least for me and my conscience, the choice is clear.

Keep the Faith
jmt

Possibly, but not always a question of the lesser of two evils. The application of the Principle of Double Effect and – where applicable – the Just War Doctrine may be involved, tedious, and difficult but it is illuminating.

To sum up the Church’s teaching on the problem of abortion:

There is no out-clause, no back-door. It is unequivocally a morally illicit action always and everywhere.

To sum up the Church’s teaching on the problem of war:

The Church prefers peaceful means to achieve justice but recognizes that certain conditions exist in support of war as a means to achieve justice. That is why it is called the Just War Doctrine. And by applying the Principle of Double Effect to any given just war, you will see that it is never a question of the ends justifying the means.

Now anti-war folks might not like voting for a pro-war, pro-life candidate. However if the pro-war, pro-life candidate is the only candidate with a pro-life platform, then voting for him/her is required. It’s not about liking. It’s not about being comfortable. It’s not about the easy way, our mother’s way, the way of least resistance, the politically correct way. It’s about choosing a morally licit action over a morally illicit one.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Aaron I.:

This is my first real post, so I am sure I made some mistakes. I’m sorry to have made such a long response, but there were a lot of issues brought up, and nothing is worse than making a point without explaining it.

You did such an awesome job on your second post that I am tempted to look up your first post!

And what you touch on is a sense of priorities. Without priorities everything is equal. Catholicism does not support the view that everything is equal.

As for your points on slavery: they are extremely topical.

Dr Henry Morgentaler in Canada is the child of concentration camp victims. He believes that abortion allows only ‘wanted children’ to come into the world. In this way the ‘adaptive child’ part of his personality is able to rationalize the injustice of having his own parents plucked away from him by the Nazis.

He believes the Nazis were unwanted children. Morgentaler has extended this survival strategy to the belief that abortion prevents crime, poverty, and all sorts of other social injustices.

How does this play out? In Canada the group who have lost the most people to abortion is the First Nations. Is he suggesting that First Nations Peoples are criminals, genetically predetermined to poverty and all sorts of other social injustices? The First Nations Peoples have asked him this question and received no answer.

In the United States, the group who have lost the most people to abortion is African Americans. Abortion was ‘offered’ to black communities by Margaret Sangster under the euphemism of ‘planned parenthood.’ Ring a bell? It should. It was the forerunner of modern day Planned Parenthood.

The reason Maggie ‘offered’ this ‘solution’ was to control their population because they were ‘having too many babies.’ Rather than recognizing their equality, rather than recognizing their constitutional rights and rising to the competition, she hoped to stack the cards against them by killing their unborn children. The statistics are absolutely horrific. Something like 37% of the African American population have been decimated to abortion.

Those who claim that the term ‘genocide’ does not apply to the practice of abortion have not looked at the target populations in which abortion clinics are concentrated.

 

[Tyler]

Just to clarify things, although my position may lean to the left, I am not acting out of a political agenda. I would certainly not jump into the lions’ den for such a hopeless cause. Ha, it’s not as if there’s any chance to change things for a while anyway!

I am sumply trying to reach a definitive understanding. And as to “Life is way more than just an intellectual exercise,” I agree. However, an apologetics class taught to me by a very competent Dominican priest has shown me the power of reason in understanding matters of the faith. I realize it cannot prove all the answers, but I prefer (somewhat heretically, I assume) to exhaust reason before relying solely on faith, if for no other purpose than that of explanation to unbelievers.

With that said, here is the link which I previously failed to give:
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp

Also, I’d like to quote a couple passages which seem pertinant.

In short, there is an ambiguity in the “Catechism.” Other punishments are looked at not just in terms of legitimate defense but under all three purposes of punishment in general. The death penalty, for some unexplained reason, is looked at only in terms of one of the three purposes, protection of innocent parties.

They are free to endorse, as a political policy, the complete abolition of capital punishment, and they are free to endorse the use of capital punishment, even beyond the very narrow limits given in the prudential judgment in section 2267.

Before anything else, I would find the opinions found here more effective if they could resolve whether or not Capital Punishment is a “cafeteria” issue.
In one corner of the ring:

Not true. Look at 2266 and 2267. The Church is very definitive in this regard. One it gives government the right to use capital punishment, but it adds the caveat that this a punishment in essense one of last resort if there is not other way to protect the community at large.

In the other:

Although I agree that Capital Punishment is wrong it is not a non-negotiable issue and cannot be binding.

Cardinal Renato R. Martino, head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, said, “You know well that the pope has spoken repeatedly against capital punishment. I have spoken against capital punishment. The European Union has abandoned capital punishment; the international tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia do not even consider imposing the death penalty” (American Catholic

Just throwing that out there.

As to unjust war, that is an entirely seperate issue. But, as it has been opened up, I will nevertheless weigh in.

From the above American Catholic article: "The capture of Saddam Hussein may help bring peace to Iraq, but it does not change the fact that “the war was useless, and served no purpose,” a top Vatican official said. "

The typical argument for Iraq (at the early stages of blatant flipflopping) was that Saddam was a bad man and he was better off gone.

When Saddam was captured, Republicans cheered because they finally got something out of the war. Catholic leaders, however, said this:

“What caused me pain was seeing this ruined man, treated like a cow whose teeth are being examined. They could have spared us those pictures,” he said.
“I felt compassion for him,” the cardinal said. He described Saddam as “a man of tragedy,” with heavy responsibilities for the crimes he committed.

This is an application of the Just War Theory to the war in Iraq.

**A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. **
We cut off the UN weapons inspectors, who would have said that there were no weapons (which was the argument du jour). Diplomacy may have worked, but we jumped the gun.

A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by
whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
This is kind of a gimme in this country, but for the sake of being argumentative, Bush wasn’t legitimately elected. The Supreme Court stepped in and prevented the winning Democratic ballots to be cast.

A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient–see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right” intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
It is very hard to redress a wrong that has not been committed. The war in Iraq was a preemptive strike. This cannot be debated intelligently.

(Forced to split up post because of length.)

 

[Tyler]

A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
This hardly seems to need explanation.

The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
When suicide bombings and reactionary killing of American invaders stops, I will drop this.

The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
Shock and Awe seems contrary to every Catholic Doctrine in existence. For the mathematically inclined, the only number of Iraqi deaths proportional to 0 American deaths is 0.

The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
Over 75% of the Iraqi casualties have been civilians. You can’t miss that much.

Let me reiterate that it is not my intention to open this up to a political debate. However, one of the easiest ways to refute an argument is to prove the terms unclear. I’d rather have an answer based on informed opinions and mutual understanding.

One final point I’d like to be clarified is this “Double Effect Test.”

The First Test for Double Effect

1. The object of the act must not be intrinsically contradictory to one’s fundamental commitment to God and neighbor (including oneself), that is, it must be a good action judged by its moral object (in other words, the action must not be intrinsically evil);

The act in question is capital punishment, which, although it may not be murder, is undeniably killing. Capital punishment purportedly passes this test. In syllogistic form,

Capital punishment, the killing of a guilty party, passes the Test for Double Effect.
No morally reprehensible act (in this case, the act of killing that is Capital Punishment) can pass the first clause of the TDE.
Killing is not morally reprehensible act.

Before you explode, know that this is not my position. Of course I value the 5th commandment as much as you do. However, I fail to find a fallacy in this syllogism. The only three ways to disprove are to prove the terms (which I have striven to clarify to the utmost extent) unclear, the argument invalid (a lack of logical fallacies covers this), or the propositions false. Obviously, one proposition must be false. Either CP does not pass the TDE (forgive my laziness, I am growing weary of typing), or killing is not a grave offense enough to pass the first clause.

These are all the points that I have the energy for now. I would apologize for post length and double-posting rules, but I somehow believe that clarity merits explanation.

Thank you again for your time.

 

[catholicdude942]

I find Tyler’s comments to be extremely thought provoking. Can someone please attempt to answer his last post? I think it warrants some type of response, but I lack the theological background necessary to give it a good answer. Perhaps, someone on here has the knowledge to answer it properly.

Thank you

 

[Kurt_G]

Although this thread has taken a turn toward a “just war” discussion, I would like to contribute to the capital punishment issue. I see no dilemma (as Tyler does), and offer the following for discussion:

Example #1: After supper at a cafe one night, my family is walking 1 block to the parking lot. We are attacked by a man and woman, who grab my 5 year old niece and begin to run down the dark street with her, while she screams “Help! Mama! Daddy! Uncle Kurt!” Uncle Roy and I get pumped up, chase them and tackle them. The man pulls a knife, Roy is NSA trained in martial arts and decks the attacker with a foot to the left side of the head. I propose Uncle Roy is acting responsibly in protecting his daughter from being kidnapped.

Example #2: Same scene, except the attacker has a pistol and shoots me. Uncle Roy immediately pulls his pistol (this is Texas with concealed licenses, OK?) and shoots the guy dead. I propose that Uncle Roy has STILL acted responsibly, as long as the method of defense is commensurate with the danger of the attack. (It would have been wrong for him to pull his lethal pistol, if he sensed no lethal threat from the attacker.)

1. We can all acknowledge that the Church does still hold a place for “theoretically justified” capital punishment. But the morality of such action should be based on protecting innocent lives, not on punishing the criminal.
2. Stravinskas (or Chacon, I don’t remember) gives one example of a possible necessity for capital punishment: A hardened violent criminal has received life imprisonment with no parole, for mutiple murders. There will be instances when others must interact with this man, in close proximity, for food or medical purposes. As a protective measure for these innocent people who must serve this criminal, the law might apply capital punishment to a murder of any such innocent person, by that criminal. BUT… such punishment has, as its justification, the protection of innnocents, not raw punishment for a crime. (Without such a punishment, this criminal risks no change in his condition or environment for doing bodily harm to others around him.
   With the punishment, he may think twice).
3. A second possible case for capital punishment would be an overabundance of hardened violent killers incarcerated in a poverty stricken 3rd world country.
   (This one is pretty sticky). If a country cannot operate a prison system because it is just too poor, the nation still has an obligation to protect the innocent citizens from violence. If a death penalty is truly all that country can afford for the worst offenders, then it might be morally justifiable. But this is a pretty “theoretical” case,
   and the moral character would certainly change as the country might become more affluent.

In the USA, I just can’t see a death penalty for any crime, other than maybe #4 above.

In my household we are about as pro-life as one can get.

-The taking of an innocent human life is always wrong, with no shades of gray.
-At the same time, the taking of a severely criminal life, for the protection of other innocents, “might” be justified, and it might not. Capital punishment is loaded with shades of gray.

So, Tyler, we don’t have the dilemma in our household which you evidently see. I think you have let the shades of gray of the one subject infiltrate the other, without any logical demand for it.

God Bless Us All!

 

[I_A]

How can we convice people of the value of lives of the marginalized adults if we can’t convince people of the value of the lives of their very children?

 

[mlchance]

Tyler:

However, much ado has been made out of the absence of one of the most obvious ones (which conveniently doesn’t align with a certain party), Capital Punishment.

How droll that you actually think the Democratic Party is opposed to capital punishment. The last Democratic president was in favor of executing the mentally retarded.

The apparent conflict exists on in your mind. Catholic teaching about abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, et cetera, are all quite clear.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Tyler]

mlchance:

How droll that you actually think the Democratic Party is opposed to capital punishment. The last Democratic president was in favor of executing the mentally retarded.

Witty. The current Republican president refused to sign a bill preventing the execution of the mentally retarded while governor of the “make my day” state. He also refused to commute the executions of three alleged criminals whose lawyers were recorded as sleeping during their trials. Call it Texas Justice.

How droll that you turn an honest, truth-seeking question into a partisan smear campaign.

 

[Kurt_G]

Tyler:

Witty…
How droll that you turn an honest, truth-seeking question into a partisan smear campaign.

1. Tyler, we know you started the thread, but gee, you’re the one who first brought up “partisan” issues, not Mark.
2. Your original suggested “dilemma” faced by right-to-lifers (versus capital punishment) has been addressed fairly well by several here. Since you have responded to none of these illuminating positions, we’ll just assume that you are “mulling it over”.
3. From your postings, I would expect that you support embryonic stem cell research, for the medical and health benefits it may offer to society. I have lots of intelligent friends, with good hearts, who feel the same way. It’s a hot button issue, no doubt. But there’s plenty of research to carry on for now with “cord” stem cell technology, without touching the embryo issue.

Have a good day, Tyler…

God Bless Us All!

 

[Benedicta]

There is no paradox- it’s simple.

Only God can give life and only God can take away life.

There is nothing complicated about it.

As for embyrionic stem cell research, there is no doubbt amontg hte scientists at the forefront of this technology.
I attended an open -forum discussion at University of Toronto last year.
It was very clearly indicated that:
the scientists know that they ae dealing with HUMAN life (which is ALIVE)
That given the proper conditions the emvbryo would continue its growth to maturity as a human baby
That it is only useful for 14 days
That it is discarded-killed after 14 days because it is of no further use
that the scientists are fully aware of exactly what they are dealing with and continue to do so in the name of progress
that the media consider that there is a gray area where there is nt one
that it is an ethical issue only by those who do not understand Jesus’ teachings on the Gospel of Life.
Simple.
May the Lord have mercy on us all.

Praised be Jesus Christ, now and forever. Amen.

 

[mjdonnelly]

The guide lists items where there is no debate.

You have just proven there is debate about capital punishment and should not be included in the voter’s guide.