Abortion nay Capital Punishmant Yay? Hypocrasy

[Abbadon]

I voted “not inherently evil,” because it is allowed according to the Catechism. I don’t agree with Catholics who use that as justification to say “kill the bastard!” every time there is a murder case on the news.

As a Catholic, I do believe we need to make the death penalty more rare. For example, IMO it should be reserved for mass murderers and the like.

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

 

[LDNCatholic]

I am not in favour of the death penalty however one thing I would like to point out. A baby has committed no crime, it doesn’t need a chance to redeem itself. A criminal on death row supposedly has committed a crime.

 

[Abbadon]

I am not in favour of the death penalty however one thing I would like to point out. A baby has committed no crime, it doesn’t need a chance to redeem itself. A criminal on death row supposedly has committed a crime.

True but does it make their life less valuable?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

JPII would be proud of you! Life is Life was a teaching of his. I am now against abortion and against use of the death penalty. However for years I was against abortion and for the death penalty. I do not consider the stance hypocrisy and here is why:

The key issue in the acceptance of capital punishment (death penalty) while opposing abortion is one of liberty (some incorrectly refer to this as responsibility). Liberty allows each person to control their life. With this control is the opportunity to do awful things if chosen by the individual. The individual could shot, bomb, torture, commit suicide, etc, etc. Now what are you and I to do when this occurs? The elimination of the individual through us killing him is reasonable. Additionally, it is a harsh duty on us. We do not want this duty, yet we may need to accept it as fulfillment of our God given role as a protector of society. As for the second part which is abortion, the baby has never chosen abortion. So whomever has chosen abortion has refused (taken unjustly) the liberty of another. Thus any abortion is by definition a refusal to accept liberty as a worthy standard in human existence.

hope that helps

 

[Texas_Roofer]

True but does it make their life less valuable?

It is not the lowering of value. If a serial killer was after your family an you had access to a gun would you use the gun to defend your family? You could let this killer have his way and allow God and only God to interfer. In fact you could ask police to leave the issue to God, but would you?

Unjust killing is wrong, just killing is undesirable but does exist. Whether an individual condition is just killing is usually a tough an often imperfect decision.

 

[rayne89]

Yes an unborn child is so important. I am against both abortion and the death penalty. A condemned man or woman has taken a life/lives already, so there is a difference. I believe those who have committed such terrible crimes should be taken when God sees fit and given the chance to repent if possible but I also see a vast difference between an innocent helpless child and a murderer.

 

[estesbob]

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

I oppose both HOWEVER the Church teaches the Death Penalty is acceptable and abortion is intrinsically evil.

I suspect that, as with most of the times this cannard is put forth, the real reason for asserting a moral equivalncy is to try and justify supporting pro-abortion politicians.

 

[john_ennis]

There’s no hypocrisy. It seems that, by and large, the only people who say there’s hypocrisy here are ones who do not believe abortion should be outlawed, but do believe capital punishment should be.

Pro-lifers who oppose capital punishment as well as abortion almost always agree that there is a crucial difference between the two.

Pro-lifers who think capital punishment has a legitimate use also (obviously) think that there’s a big difference.

The ones who most often don’t see a difference seem to oppose the death penalty but not legal abortion!

Am I mistaken? Abbadon-you think both should be equally protected?

Peace.
John

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I oppose both HOWEVER the Church teaches the Death Penalty is acceptable and abortion is intrinsically evil.

I suspect that, as with most of the times this cannard is put forth, the real reason for asserting a moral equivalncy is to try and justify supporting pro-abortion politicians.

This is true a lot of the time.

 

[john_ennis]

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

Mis-applications of “Do unto others” are obvious when they fail.

If I were a murderer, I would wish not be be put to death. I would also wish not to be punished in any way–not imprisoned or fined or anything.

So what about treating murderers as I would like to be treated?

 

[blessedtoo]

Can we also be very clear about the very infrequent use of Capital punishment in this country? Even when a convicted murderer receives the death penalty, chances are it will not actually happen for decades after the verdict, if at all. During that time, a person has ample opportunity to repent or make a case to establish that an injustice has occurred.

Let’s look at a recent case of the death penalty being given:

Judge Howard calmly read his 18-page ruling, recounting first the gruesome facts of the case. How Jessica, a third-grader from Homosassa, disappeared from her room in the middle of the night in February 2005, kidnapped by a sex offender living across the street. How Couey raped her, then buried her alive in a plastic garbage bag.
Couey didn’t flinch when he learned his fate. Sitting in a red jail uniform between his court-appointed attorneys, he looked down at the table expressionless.
Dawsy said he felt compelled to tell Couey to “stand up and be a man” after reading earlier this week about Couey’s jailhouse conversation with his aunt. In that recording, Couey deflected blame for Jessica’s death onto others, and he said he was comforted knowing that a lot of good came out of the murder.

sptimes.com/2007/08/25/State/Jessie_s_killer_gets_.shtml

Does John Couey’s life have value? Certainly. But we do have laws in this country. Catholics are not pacifists. Just as we adhere to a “just war” doctrine, we are also given room to determine whether the state is justified in giving the death penalty. JPII was clear on using Capital Punishment in only the rarest of cases. One could certainly argue that the US is very prudent in it’s use of Capital punishment.

There is also the matter of those who continue to pose a threat while in prison for their crimes. You could speak to anyone who works in a prison and find that often they are victimized themselves, as well as other prisoners.

 

[JRKH]

I can only speak for myself.

I must first of all seperate a secular view from a moral view.

As an American, I oppose abortion on the scientific grounds that once a child is concieved it contains 48 chromosones and that is the single item that makes humans humans. Oversimplified? Yes. But there it is. In addition, the child has committed no crime therefore there is no justification for aborting. Unfortunately the Supreme Court has ruled that it’s not a person until it is born. This is a legal definition, not a medical or moral one.

As an American, I am neutral re: the death penalty. I am in favor of whater steps are necessry, consitutioinally, to protect our society. Unfortuanately the death penalty is a necessary evil in this equation at present. The person being executed is guilty of a serious and usually brutal crime and is recieving the punishment he/she knew to expect if convicted.

As a Catholic, I oppose abortion for the same reasons as above. This is a human life and should be protected.

As a Catholic, I pray for the redemption of all. That includes a prisoner who is being led to death. If one believes that life does not end with the physical death, then one can realize that the condemned person may, or may not, be forgiven by God. Witness the two men executed with Jesus. I am not the judge here.

May God Bless

James

 

[rlg94086]

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

Hi Abbadon,

Good thread. I hope you have found your answers. I could repeat them, but I would say the other posters have summed it up pretty well.

If it wasn’t clear from my post, I am not a strong supporter of the Death Penalty, however, I believe it needs to be applied more rarely than it currently is. This is because of my belief in Church teaching.

**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."

Pax,
Robert

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Can we also be very clear about the very infrequent use of Capital punishment in this country? Even when a convicted murderer receives the death penalty, chances are it will not actually happen for decades…There is also the matter of those who continue to pose a threat while in prison for their crimes. You could speak to anyone who works in a prison and find that often they are victimized themselves, as well as other prisoners.

Which are 2 indications that the objective of Capital Punishment is not being achieved. Since any danger they impose exists for decades. Either we are sufficient with the prison process and then should not perform the execution. Or we are insufficient with the imprisonment and need to perform the execution much earlier. The earlier option is what JPII spoke of, and seems correct to me. The latter appears reasonable to dismiss.

 

[Contarini]

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

I would rather die than kill an innocent person. So if I ever become a murderer and am likely to kill more people if not executed, please execute me.

Edwin

 

[RowBoat]

The death penalty has had a rich and varied application history. Horse theives, pickpockets, murderers, witches, and heretics all fell victim. Aquinas even told us heretics should be killed for disagreeing with the Church. Anyone agree with Aquinas?

 

[estesbob]

The death penalty has had a rich and varied application history. Horse theives, pickpockets, murderers, witches, and heretics all fell victim. Aquinas even told us heretics should be killed for disagreeing with the Church. Anyone agree with Aquinas?

And this has what to do with the topic?

Oh I get it-the Church has always been evil-even Thomas Aquians was so it is hypocricy for them to accept capital punishment but not abortion. Did i get it right or was there another point you were trying to make.?

 

[RowBoat]

And this has what to do with the topic?

Oh I get it-the Church has always been evil-even Thomas Aquians was so it is hypocricy for them to accept capital punishment but not abortion. Did i get it right or was there another point you were trying to make.?

The death penalty is certainly in the scope of the topic, and some have mentioned that it is justified based on the actions of the executed. My post points out that justification has a varied history, and what we see as unjust today was seen as just in the past.

One could validly argue that situations were different in past eras, so it’s instructive to look at a case where Catholic moral tachings, which are claimed not to change, were employed. Aquinas is the foremost theologian of the Church, and he approved of killing people who disagreed with the Church.

So, if we disagree with Aquinas today, and the moral teachings of the Church have not changed, then what prompts us to disagree with him? What mechanism is at work that shapes our thinking to be different from that of Aquinas?

Of course, those who do want to kill those who disagee with the Church do not face this question, but I really don’t think there are very many of them.

 

[estesbob]

The death penalty is certainly in the scope of the topic, and some have mentioned that it is justified based on the actions of the executed. My post points out that justification has a varied history, and what we see as unjust today was seen as just in the past.

We were talking about abortion and the death penaly in todays time. You drug in witches anbd heretics. The usual attempt to change the subject and to daw us into defending the Church practices of 800 years ago . Start another thread if thats what you want to discuss.

One could validly argue that situations were different in past eras, so it’s instructive to look at a case where Catholic moral tachings, which are claimed not to change, were employed. Aquinas is the foremost theologian of the Church, and he approved of killing people who disagreed with the Church.

So, if we disagree with Aquinas today, and the moral teachings of the Church have not changed, then what prompts us to disagree with him? What mechanism is at work that shapes our thinking to be different from that of Aquinas?

Since we have all agreed that burning heretics has nothiing to do with the topic at hand why do you continue to bring it up.

Of course, those who do want to kill those who disagee with the Church do not face this question, but I really don’t think there are very many of them.

Which by you own admission has zilch to do with the topic at hand

 

[RowBoat]

We were talking about abortion and the death penaly in todays time. You drug in witches anbd heretics. The usual attempt to change the subject and to daw us into defending the Church practices of 800 years ago . Start another thread if thats what you want to discuss.

Since we have all agreed that burning heretics has nothiing to do with the topic at hand why do you continue to bring it up.

Which by you own admission has zilch to do with the topic at hand

Well, if the standards of who we can kill can change over time, how do we know we have correct policy today? I’m sure Aquinas was sincere in his belief that people who disagreed with the Church should be killed. And people today are sincere in their belief that its OK to kill murderers. Some also think it’s OK to kill a fetus.

So, what standard do we use? Is it possible that standards change over time, or one standard is replaced by another. Did Aquinas use one standard, while we us another? Which is right? How do we know?