Abortion nay Capital Punishmant Yay? Hypocrasy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abbadon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Abbadon said:
Was by rlg94086

The life of an unborn child is so important yet it is okay for us to put to death a man who commited a sin?

Isnt life life regardless?

I’d like pro death sentence catholics to post here and justify it and if there anti abortion why the double standard?

Also what about treat thy nieghbour as you would like to be treated? Would you want to be sentenced to death or given a chance of forgiveness and redemption

Intrested to know
Click to expand...
I don’t know where this puts me, but I believe abortion is always ALWAYS wrong, except when the mother’s life will DEFINATELY end and kill the child in the process (ectopic pregnancy)

And I believe the death penalty is never acceptable unless the convict is so messed up mentally (sociopath?) that he has no intention on ever changing, AND is a threat to the guards, AND there is even the slightest possibility he may escape from prison. If he was to escape, and it was known that he WOULD kill again, and he does, the innocent blood of new victims fall on us all.
 
Delphinus85 said:
I don’t know where this puts me, but I believe abortion is always ALWAYS wrong, except when the mother’s life will DEFINATELY end and kill the child in the process (ectopic pregnancy)

And I believe the death penalty is never acceptable unless the convict is so messed up mentally (sociopath?) that he has no intention on ever changing, AND is a threat to the guards, AND there is even the slightest possibility he may escape from prison. If he was to escape, and it was known that he WOULD kill again, and he does, the innocent blood of new victims fall on us all.
Click to expand...
If someone is strapped to a gurney for execution, I suppose we could keep them there with a feeding tube for quite a while.
 
RowBoat said:
a case where Catholic moral tachings, which are claimed not to change, were employed.
Click to expand...
Your statement reveals a misunderstanding. The principles of Catholic moral teachings are claimed not to change. Applications of those principles, as Aquinas himself pointed out more than once, can change.
 
cpayne said:
Your statement reveals a misunderstanding. The principles of Catholic moral teachings are claimed not to change. Applications of those principles, as Aquinas himself pointed out more than once, can change.
Click to expand...
Well, is it OK to kill people who disagree with the Church? Aquinas said it was.
 
Abbadon said:
Was by rlg94086

The life of an unborn child is so important yet it is okay for us to put to death a man who commited a sin?

Isnt life life regardless?

I’d like pro death sentence catholics to post here and justify it and if there anti abortion why the double standard?

Also what about treat thy nieghbour as you would like to be treated? Would you want to be sentenced to death or given a chance of forgiveness and redemption

Intrested to know
Click to expand...
Some crimes are worthy of capital punishment. Unborn children have committed no such crimes.

Being sentenced to death, by the way, does not rule out forgiveness and redemption. In fact, it may hasten it a bit.
 
RowBoat said:
Well, is it OK to kill people who disagree with the Church? Aquinas said it was.
Click to expand...
No. The principle behind it, however, is that your spiritual life is more important than your physical life. Do you agree?
 
cpayne said:
No. The principle behind it, however, is that your spiritual life is more important than your physical life. Do you agree?
Click to expand...
  1. Good.
  2. Was Aquinas wrong?
  3. It’s quite easy to say spiritual life is more important than physical. I note Aquinas didn’t simply say that. He said it was OK to kill people who disagreed with the Church.
 
Wait a minute, I changed my mind. I’ve GOT to go to bed. But I shall return, much later. Bye.
 
Abbadon said:
Was by rlg94086

The life of an unborn child is so important yet it is okay for us to put to death a man who commited a sin?

Isnt life life regardless?

I’d like pro death sentence catholics to post here and justify it and if there anti abortion why the double standard?

Also what about treat thy nieghbour as you would like to be treated? Would you want to be sentenced to death or given a chance of forgiveness and redemption

Intrested to know
Click to expand...
Apples and Oranges, you can’t compare an innocent baby to a vile criminal.
 
We get that you’ve got a big, persistent and somewhat annoying gripe again the Church, Christians, religion, etc.

This thread IS NOT ABOUT AQUINAS. It’s not about the Church’s position on Capital Punishment. It’s not about heretics and witches. It’s not about your personal vendetta.

It is about the value of all human life and apparently you can’t comment on that because:
I have no opinion on the value of spiritual vs physical life. I have no reason to recognize a difference.
Click to expand...
Why don’t you start a thread (or 100 threads) where you can air all your objections about Christianity and we can respond to each individually?
 
Which are 2 indications that the objective of Capital Punishment is not being achieved. Since any danger they impose exists for decades.
Click to expand...
I’m confused by this response.:confused:
 
2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
blessedtoo said:
I’m confused by this response.:confused:
Click to expand...
adrift said:
I am too. :confused:
Click to expand...
The catechism says if we can imprison the offender we are to do that. The poster says we do imprison the offender for decades. And then sometimes execute the offender after the imprisonment. So those executions do not conform to catholic teaching. Second part if we execute an older worn out man for crimes he committed 15 years earlier why did we execute him? The answer ( pick what you want) does not comply with catholic teachings or good logic. We are allowed to execute to protect the innocent from imminent danger. How is the older man sitting in prison for the 16th year an imminent danger, and to whom does he pose this danger?
 
cpayne said:
Your statement reveals a misunderstanding. The principles of Catholic moral teachings are claimed not to change. Applications of those principles, as Aquinas himself pointed out more than once, can change.
Click to expand...
I promised I’d answer the question about Aquinas, so I will. My own personal physical life is not more important than someone else’s spiritual life, if something I said or did directed that person into hell. Nonetheless, the application of that principle today would not entail a death penalty for heresy. I would guess, given Aquinas’s circumstances, it would not entail a death penalty in medieval Europe, either. Therefore, I would conclude that on that point Aquinas was wrong in his application, although the moral principle behind the application is still valid. Your spiritual life is more important than your physical life.

On the general topic of the death penalty, however: I have absolutely no problem with it, in some cases.
 
The catechism says if we can imprison the offender we are to do that. The poster says we do imprison the offender for decades. And then sometimes execute the offender after the imprisonment. So those executions do not conform to catholic teaching. Second part if we execute an older worn out man for crimes he committed 15 years earlier why did we execute him? The answer ( pick what you want) does not comply with catholic teachings or good logic. We are allowed to execute to protect the innocent from imminent danger. How is the older man sitting in prison for the 16th year an imminent danger, and to whom does he pose this danger?
Click to expand...
Ted Bundy is a good example. Killed escaped from prison and killed again. Those on death row are more secured. It would not be possible to do this to everyone. Older man? That is an appeal to sentiment not fact. Who does he pose a danger to? Guards and other prisoners if he is let out to the general population. The Church position is that government has the right to execute. That it is the government that makes the call. The Catechism guides that call but does not make the decision. I agree that it should be rare. What I don’t agree with is that our society has the means to protect us from all who would kill without the death penalty. If there were no killings in prison, than it would never have to be used. The fact is there are killings including the Federal prison which has the most stringent setting. Imprisonment than does not protect. Ted Bundy is dead. Society is protected from him ever killing again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top