Abortion vs Captial Punishment

[JoeyWarren]

A murder for a murder parallels the
Eye for an Eye issue and we all know what Jesus spoke of concerning that…

It may not be intrinsicly evil but it is a sin to kill more so when other means are available to keep the person out of the public’s harm.

As for abortion, well, in defending pro choice, I have only one thing to say further on the matter:

The Family that does not use the PILL cast the first stone upon the Abortionist!

 

[Phil_M]

Abortion is more evil than capital punishment, for reasons that have already been stated. If the two candidates are equally strong or weak, and the decision comes down to these two issues, I’d support whoever is anti-abortion

However, it’s important that a voter examine all of a candidate’s policies and views, not just on these two issues. If someone is pro-life on abortion, but is also pro-capital punishment, has weak plans to fight poverty domestically and globally, does not show any concern for the environment, does not treat war as a last resort, and has lied to the people on many occasions, then I wouldn’t support the person, especially if they happened to be running against someone who was pro-choice but had very strong plans to lower the abortion rate

 

[shannyk]

Joey,

The family who doesn’t use the pill can cast the first stone at the abortionist

I don’t use the pill so can you hand me that big boulder over there…ug…thanks…heavy…must…throw…at…abortionist…

Ok in all seriousness I’d never harm anyone and I don’t condone throwing boulders at abortionists.

Politicians however, are fair game

 

[estesbob]

Phil M:

Abortion is more evil than capital punishment, for reasons that have already been stated. If the two candidates are equally strong or weak, and the decision comes down to these two issues, I’d support whoever is anti-abortion

However, it’s important that a voter examine all of a candidate’s policies and views, not just on these two issues. If someone is pro-life on abortion, but is also pro-capital punishment, has weak plans to fight poverty domestically and globally, does not show any concern for the environment, does not treat war as a last resort, and has lied to the people on many occasions, then I wouldn’t support the person, especially if they happened to be running against someone who was pro-choice but had very strong plans to lower the abortion rate

Then you shouldnt vote for either. How could you possbilly entrust the governing of our country to someone who supports the killing of 1.2 million children a year???

 

[estesbob]

turboEDvo:

That is a gross oversimplification that is entirely misleading to somebody who does not understand that Church’s stance on capital punishment.

Eamon

Not an oversimplification at all-it is a concise statment of Church teaching on Captial Punishment. As one who opposes Capital Punishment as vehemently as I do abortion i wish it were not true but it is not right for me to try and distort the teachings of the Church to bolster my own views. I even confrinted Archbishop Fiorenza about this issue at an after Ordination reception and he very graciously explained to me the Churchs postion on captial punishment and why it was allowed.

 

[JoeyWarren]

estesbob:

Then you shouldnt vote for either. How could you possbilly entrust the governing of our country to someone who supports the killing of 1.2 million children a year???

But you rather vote for a person that will destroy this country by other means?

 

[mike182d]

JoeyWarren:

But you rather vote for a person that will destroy this country by other means?

What do you mean by “destroying this country by other means?”

Do you mean like taxing the American people into oblivion to stifle economic growth and prosperity?

Do you mean like wasting billions of hard earned money in a welfare system that is abused and in dire need of reform?

Do you mean like watching the World Trade Center get attacked, watching the U.S.S. Cole get attacked, and yet sit by and do nothing so that 9/11 could happen?

Do you mean like destroying this country by complaining about what’s wrong with the other party while not be able to provide an alternative solution to any of the world’s problems?

Do you mean like destroying our country by having the same opinion and talking points against American as Osama bin Laden and the very people trying to destroy us?

I’m curious as to who you had in mind.

 

[fix]

turboEDvo:

No.

The Church teaches that it is wrong to take life.

The Church also teaches that it is justifiable murder if the murder of an agressor is an unintended result of self-defense. This means that you did not intend to kill the individual but did so while protecting yourself.

However:
“The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing.” CCC 2264

This is because the** murder** of an attacker MUST be the unintended result of self-defense (as CCC 2264 goes on to say)

Self defense is not murder. Where does the CCC use the term murder to desrcibe that action?

This is from the CCC:

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

It specifically says self defense is not an exception to the prohibition against murder. So taking of a life, in self defense, is not murder.

As well:

“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 definitively 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.’” Quoted from CCC 2267

Thus, it would appear that the Church has actually said that the necessity to murder a man is virtually non-existent in today’s society.

To summarize, the Church says that killing is wrong and there is essentially no need on the state level to kill people.

Eamon

It does not say killing is wrong. It says killing innocents is wrong. How can self defense be wrong?

 

[DreadVandal]

JoeyWarren:

Also, many Christians today, cannot reconcile capital punishment with a consistent “respect-for-life ethic”. The purpose of punishing criminals is to redress the disorder caused by the offense, to preserve public order and personal safety, and to correct the offender. The poor and minorities, who cannot afford the costly appeals process of our legal system, have suffered capital punishment the most, a form of punishment that does not reform the criminal. Furthermore, there is little evidence to show that capital punishment deters crime, a key reason people have used to justify it. And although scripture recognizes society’s right to use the death penalty in grave cases, it is to the credit of Christian nations to follow Jesus’ example of forgiving love and refrain from exercising it. The gospel of Jesus’ forgiving love teaches that because of the many means society has to deter crime today, capital punishment should very rarely be used. It should only take place in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

The Christian person should not be hold on to vices such as the need for revenge or the need for retribution and other vices that lead to the “want of murder” toward another.

My priest painted a picture for us during a recent RCIA class. Picture in your mind Children sitting on the Lap of Jesus. Now picture a man sitting in an electric chair, now picture Jesus walking up and throwing the switch.

He could not see it nor can I.

What your priest did is what is called sophistry. It is simply manipulation of the emotions. God gave us reason in order to think things through and rely on our feelings. The death penalty for heineous crimes is intrinsically just. Abortion is intrinsically evil. Such is the voice of reason. There is no dilemma for me.

 

[DreadVandal]

JoeyWarren:

And if you were able to shut down all of the back street abortion clinics, you would still have the drug trafficking of the “Morning After Pill” Look at the war on drugs. It has failed. As would the war on abortion would fail. You can’t stop free will. When there is a will there will be a way to achieve an abortion.

Well heck, that’s true for drug abuse, prostitution, tax evasion, war, cheating on exams, plagiarism, copyright infringement, theft, armed robbery, etc. Why make anything illegal? Show me one law that hasn’t been broken. See, you can’t. So, since people are just going to do it anyway, it makes no sense to make anything illegal.

 

[DreadVandal]

JoeyWarren:

Breaking News:

– Gov. Mike Rounds signs legislation banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, The Associated Press reports.

Thats almost creepy with coincidence.

You seem displeased.

 

[mike182d]

fix:

It does not say killing is wrong. It says killing innocents is wrong. How can self defense be wrong?

You know, I don’t think this point is stressed enough. There is a tendency to point to the 10 Commandments and “Thou shall not kill” as an argument against Capital Punishment, but notice that the commandment doesn’t specifically mention human beings. It doesn’t say “thou shall not kill people” it says “thou shall not kill.” If we are to take this Commandment purely at face value as many within the Church would have us believe, it is immoral to kill anything. If I eat a burger, I’ve killed. If I’m driving down the interstate and hit a gnat, I’ve killed. If I stomp on a cockroach in my house, I’ve killed.

The Commandment doesn’t specifically make a distinction about what is ok to kill and what isn’t, it simply says “thou shall not kill.”

So, either our resolve as Catholics must be to never kill *anything *to the best of our ability, or take the route that you have explained in the catechism by detailing the difference between “killing” and “murder.”

 

[mike182d]

The Family that does not use the PILL cast the first stone upon the Abortionist!

You’ve given every orthodox Catholic the right to stone abortionists. Thanks!

JoeyWarren:

A murder for a murder parallels the
Eye for an Eye issue and we all know what Jesus spoke of concerning that…

Jesus was saying nothing new. All throughout the Old Testament, God will tell the Israelites that it’s wrong to seek revenge, that “an eye for an eye” is evil. And then right after telling the Jews this, He commands them to war. Is God confused or is there a difference? Are not all forms of killing moral equivilants?

 

[DreadVandal]

turboEDvo:

No.

The Church teaches that it is wrong to take life.

The Church also teaches that it is justifiable murder if the murder of an agressor is an unintended result of self-defense. This means that you did not intend to kill the individual but did so while protecting yourself.

However:
“The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing.” CCC 2264

This is because the murder of an attacker MUST be the unintended result of self-defense (as CCC 2264 goes on to say)

As well:

“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 definitively 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.’” Quoted from CCC 2267

Thus, it would appear that the Church has actually said that the necessity to murder a man is virtually non-existent in today’s society.

To summarize, the Church says that killing is wrong and there is essentially no need on the state level to kill people.

Eamon

Eamon, you are equivocating on the word murder. That is a very subtle trick because it serves to confusion one’s opponent in the debate. So I will clarify terms.

Kill=to end a life
Murder=Intentional, unjustified killing.

Not all killing is murder.

 

[mike182d]

DreadVandal:

Not all killing is murder.

Very true. And not all “killing” involves human beings, either. A distinction must be made in order to avoid falling into absurdity and watching our step to be sure we don’t kill *any *living thing unnecessarily - cockroaches included.

 

[DreadVandal]

JoeyWarren:

A murder for a murder parallels the
Eye for an Eye issue and we all know what Jesus spoke of concerning that…

It may not be intrinsicly evil but it is a sin to kill more so when other means are available to keep the person out of the public’s harm.

As for abortion, well, in defending pro choice, I have only one thing to say further on the matter:

Jesus was saying that as Christians we are not to seek personal revenge and retaliate. Rather, we should accept abuse from others in Christ’s name to convert them to the Gospel.

Jesus was not talking about the Natural Law or the function of the state. However, St. Paul says quite a bit about it in Romans and he says that the state is the agent of God’s wrath against sinners, given the power of the sword.

 

[fix]

mike182d:

You know, I don’t think this point is stressed enough. There is a tendency to point to the 10 Commandments and “Thou shall not kill” as an argument against Capital Punishment, but notice that the commandment doesn’t specifically mention human beings. It doesn’t say “thou shall not kill people” it says “thou shall not kill.” If we are to take this Commandment purely at face value as many within the Church would have us believe, it is immoral to kill anything. If I eat a burger, I’ve killed. If I’m driving down the interstate and hit a gnat, I’ve killed. If I stomp on a cockroach in my house, I’ve killed.

The Commandment doesn’t specifically make a distinction about what is ok to kill and what isn’t, it simply says “thou shall not kill.”

So, either our resolve as Catholics must be to never kill *anything *to the best of our ability, or take the route that you have explained in the catechism by detailing the difference between “killing” and “murder.”

Yes, that is true. My issue here is one of authority. By this I mean the Church says that we as individuals have the right, and at times the obligation, to protect innocent life even if a lethal blow is dealt. It seems She means we personally may not intend to kill an offender, yet if it happens we are not morally guilty and the act of stopping another to save innocents is morally good.

Now, what about the case of capital punishment. Here the state directly intends to kill the guilty person, perhaps in some way referring to self defense. Is the direct willing of the guilty person’s death morally licit because the state is acting in place of God and in individual cases we may not act in place of God? Am I being clear in my question?

 

[DreadVandal]

JoeyWarren:

But you rather vote for a person that will destroy this country by other means?

Maybe the best thing to do then is to not vote at all.

 

[DreadVandal]

mike182d:

Very true. And not all “killing” involves human beings, either. A distinction must be made in order to avoid falling into absurdity and watching our step to be sure we don’t kill *any *living thing unnecessarily - cockroaches included.

Yes indeed. Good point Mike. We are not Jainists

 

[DreadVandal]

fix:

Yes, that is true. My issue here is one of authority. By this I mean the Church says that we as individuals have the right, and at times the obligation, to protect innocent life even if a lethal blow is dealt. It seems She means we personally may not intend to kill an offender, yet if it happens we are not morally guilty and the act of stopping another to save innocents is morally good.

Now, what about the case of capital punishment. Here the state directly intends to kill the guilty person, perhaps in some way referring to self defense. Is the direct willing of the guilty person’s death morally licit because the state is acting in place of God and in individual cases we may not act in place of God? Am I being clear in my question?

Actually, read Romans carefully and you will see that St. Paul says that the state is the agent of God. So yes, the state can act as God in taking life when it is according to the Natural Law. The death penalty, when justly, swiftly and publicly applied, is good. It restores the balance of justice, it removes a cancer from society, and it deters others from committing the crime. In fact, when the condemned accepts his punishment as being just, he expiates his crime through his own death.