Can A Christin Be Against Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_Pick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So us as catholics and christains in general were faced with a lose lose situation. We can either vote for one who supports the killing of babies, or we can vote for another who supports the killing of innocents…How do we make that choice? Abortion is gonna be here regardless of how the president feels about it. But Obama at least wants to stop the war. Personally I still voted for McCain because I can’t even begin to think of following under a leader who supports abortion so strongly as Obama does. But either way, each candidate supported death. I don’t see what’s so complicated about PEACE!!!
Not to side track this thread but a just type in number of poeple killed by Saddam Hussein and you will find numbers upward of 2,000,000. I say that to say this while I wish that there were never any war something had to be done to end this mans reign of terror in that country and what we had been doing was not working. I also do not see how supporting what we are trying to do in Iraq is supporting the killing of innocents. and yes Obama says he for ending the war, but even he has said ( since the elections) that he does not see it happening with in the next years, which puts us right along with the same time line that both Pres Bush and sen McCain have said. As for talking with Bin Laudin if he was interested in talking he would have been talking instead of building and terrorist army of assassins.

the complicated thing of peace is that as humans we all want peace , but on our terms. there will never be peace till Christ has returned. What we as Christians must do is pray that those making the decisions do what is best to maintain as much peace as possible for as long as possible in as many places as possible, without destroying our basic freedoms in the process.

Run from the left and walk really fast from the right.
 
I don’t know what’s so complicated about peace either.

And I submit that those who want to stop fighting against terrorism be the first to volunteer to go see Osama Bin Laden and invite him to the peace talks! 😉

The problem arises when one side is agreeable to peace, while the other side is agreeable only to war. How do you make peace with someone who wants to kill you and will make every attempt to do so, as soon as possible? Do we just lay down and die? That’s not making peace, that’s suicide.
Secure the borders. Help other countries secure their borders. Get the international community to agree to a plan of education and economic training and loans to the poor of all countries. Narrow the gap between the supper rich and the rest of society by requiring global companies to pay a living wage in every country they do business and obey anti pollution laws agreed on by all nations.

Identify those countries who support terrorism and isolate them financially and through trade barriers and no fly zones. Let’s start with the greatest financier of terrorism and the country of origin for the 9/11 terrorist-----Saudi Arabia.

Now that oil is less than $40 a barrel, let’s stop buying oil from Saudi Arabia, Iran and any other country that supports terrorism. Develop alternative energy so we will never be dependent upon people who wish us ill. Dependence on foreign oil was identified as a security risk to this nation in the 1970’s. It is time we took action.

These are just some ideas of the top of my head.
Don’t forget what I discovered that over ninety percent of all national deficits from 1921 to 1939 were caused by payments for past, present, and future wars.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
 
If the police were perfect, if prosecutors were perfect, if judges and juries were perfect, then perhaps one could support Capital Punishment. But since all of these people are not perfect then Capital Punishment is absolutely wrong. Many innocent men and women have died because people want revenge rather than the justice of life imprisonment. I am amazed that anyone supports it especially those who purport to value life.
The Church is mostly against the death penalty. There are some extenuating circumstances where the Church would allow the death penalty. For example, if a man in a third world country was seen as a threat to society and there were no other choices to incarcerate the individual.
 
The Church is mostly against the death penalty. There are some extenuating circumstances where the Church would allow the death penalty. For example, if a man in a third world country was seen as a threat to society and there were no other choices to incarcerate the individual.
I get the feeling though that some of the people on here feel as though the death penalty is a positive thing and should be used more often and are actually trying to use the bible to back them up. I agree with what you said though thank you.
 
Leave the faith? What defines a Catholic, is it just a title or is it based upon ones deeds and actions?
It should be more than a title. It should be based upon accepting the teachings of the Church, and acting accordingly.

FOr example, if you dispute the Real Presence, you might as well leave because you no longer accept the teachings of the Church.

If you say that the pope has no authority over you in matters of faith and morals, you should go.

If you no longer believe what the Church teaches, you are not Catholic. Why try to act like one?
 
It should be more than a title. It should be based upon accepting the teachings of the Church, and acting accordingly.

FOr example, if you dispute the Real Presence, you might as well leave because you no longer accept the teachings of the Church.

If you say that the pope has no authority over you in matters of faith and morals, you should go.

If you no longer believe what the Church teaches, you are not Catholic. Why try to act like one?
Perhaps you have answered your own question. They are trying to act like a Catholic and failing. Perhaps they will do a better job of acting like a Catholic down the road a bit. 😉
 
Capitol punishment is clearly a form of revenge killing.

It is not even self defense. We can lock up a prisoner for life and never see the light of day outside of his/her prison walls and society will be safe.

At least then the prisoner has a chance to repent their sins to the Lord and seek salvation.

Kill them as revenge for killing another to me just keeps them from possibly having opportunity to find salvation.
 
I am struggling to find the source of your information. Please don’t say the New Testiment because that would be false. Are we still living in the days before the preachings of peace by Christ? Are we not suppose to resemble our lives to His? When did He kill? Who are we to decide when a person has forfeited his life?
Some passages for you to consider:

Matt 10

28Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Matt 22
Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

A question for you:

If by your actions(or inaction), you contribute to the murder of an innocent person, do you share responsibility?

If you have the capacity for logical thought, which you do, then you can determine the best course of action for protecting innocent life.

Don’t take take teachings regarding interpersonal behaviors and morality and automatically assume they apply to society as a whole.
 
Some passages for you to consider:

Matt 10

28Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Matt 22
Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

A question for you:

If by your actions(or inaction), you contribute to the murder of an innocent person, do you share responsibility?

If you have the capacity for logical thought, which you do, then you can determine the best course of action for protecting innocent life.

Don’t take take teachings regarding interpersonal behaviors and morality and automatically assume they apply to society as a whole.
Well those passages are all very interesting, but I still do not see how they promote the death penalty. When He says he has not come to bring peace but to bring the sword is to fortell what is to come especially in accordance with him, but never does he say it is ok. I do agree that if in order to bring peace to an innocent then the guilty should be killed IF that was the case. If it absolutely meant that there was no way of encarcerating him, if there was NO other ways of keeping him from harming somebody, but I am saying that there HAS to be other ways besides death. I am not disagreeing with you fully, I am just saying there has to be other ways.

And, in your first passage you put up it says do NOT be afraid of the one who can kill your body but not your soul. Think about that one.
 
Well those passages are all very interesting, but I still do not see how they promote the death penalty. When He says he has not come to bring peace but to bring the sword is to fortell what is to come especially in accordance with him, but never does he say it is ok. I do agree that if in order to bring peace to an innocent then the guilty should be killed IF that was the case. If it absolutely meant that there was no way of encarcerating him, if there was NO other ways of keeping him from harming somebody, but I am saying that there HAS to be other ways besides death. I am not disagreeing with you fully, I am just saying there has to be other ways.

And, in your first passage you put up it says do NOT be afraid of the one who can kill your body but not your soul. Think about that one.
.

If you were witnessing the murder of an innocent person, AND you had the ability to stop the murder by killing the perpetrator, would you be morally justified in doing so?

Would you be morally culpable if you failed to stop the murder?
 
.

If you were witnessing the murder of an innocent person, AND you had the ability to stop the murder by killing the perpetrator, would you be morally justified in doing so?

Would you be morally culpable if you failed to stop the murder?
That is not revenge. That is defense of another life as it it happens.The death penalty is long after the horrible deed had been done and he/she is already locked and safely seperated from society. Yet we kill them. This is revenge.
 
Not true.

Hundreds of people have been murdered in prison by those who should have been executed, including prison guards.
First, let me say that I agree that the use of capital punishment in the US as it is currently used is immoral. The catechism says,

"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 more in conformity with 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 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."68"However - that does not mean that it will always be. For example, what if we catch some criminal like bin Laden. It would be a danger to society to have him alive and in jail. His fanatics would do all kinds of things to get him out, more than they would if we executed him. In that instance it would be moral and even mandatory for the protection of life to execute one man.

Next - In discussion like these it is important to use facts and not opinions. We need to affirm truths, not believe whatever we want to believe. If we are not after truth - then this is just gossip.

That said - the facts are:
Are you advocating for better health care, suicide prevention in prison. If you are for the sanctity of life - then you should be. Those are greater causes of death in prison than homicide. Also, I have never come across any study or statistics on how many death row inmates have committed murder behind bars. Please share those stats you claim and where you got them.

Have you ever visited or ministered to those in prison? If so then you would know that those on death row, generally speaking, are locked up 23.5 hours a day and when they are released for exercise it is by themselves in another locked “pit”. Most deaths come from Medium and Minimum security - those not on death row. This is because in Medium and Minimum security there is, again generally speaking, 50-100 inmates per guard and they live in a dorm setting - not locked up in a cage. This information can be gained by looking at your states DOC website.

A better approach to decreasing the use of capital punishment is educating people with facts, not opinions, on how it doesn’t help and it actually costs more to execute someone than to lock them up for life. There is even some research the suggests that capital punishment actually increases violent crime - this is known as the brutalization effect. To trully understand capital punishment and all of it’s effect on people and society check out Dr. Wrightsman’s Psychology and the Law. In it, he directs you to other’s research and studies across the world showing that capital punishment does more harm than good in multiple ways.
 
That is not revenge. That is defense of another life as it it happens.The death penalty is long after the horrible deed had been done and he/she is already locked and safely seperated from society. Yet we kill them. This is revenge.
The death penalty saves innocent lives.

Hundreds of people have been killed in America by persons previously convicted of murder.

If you oppose the death penalty,then you are implicitly an accomplice.
 
The death penalty saves innocent lives.

Hundreds of people have been killed in America by persons previously convicted of murder.

If you oppose the death penalty,then you are implicitly an accomplice.
And many more killed by those never convicted of murder.

Your last comment is so hilarious. Actually as I think about this more it is sad and pathetic you would call me an accomplice to murder because I disagee on a theological standpoint of the death penalty.
 
.

If you were witnessing the murder of an innocent person, AND you had the ability to stop the murder by killing the perpetrator, would you be morally justified in doing so?

Would you be morally culpable if you failed to stop the murder?
A hypothetical never reflects reality because it seldom gives more than one choice of action. In this case you choose to kill or do nothing. But I will answer your question from my ethical POV.

If it appeared that a person was attempting to murder another person, I would do my best to stop the murderer. The victim does not have to be innocent for me to act.

My intent would be to stop the potential murder, not to kill. I would make every effort based on this intent. I would start by calling 911 and asking them what I should do based on the scene I was witnessing. I would then take the action they recommend. I would be yelling “stop the police are coming” at the top of my lungs.

You hypothetical assumes that the victim is innocent (You have now way of knowing that). It assumes that the “murderer” is not in fact acting in self defense (You have no way of knowing that). Your intent is to kill someone based on these assumptions. If you act, you are therefore guilty of killing. You may unintentionally kill the “innocent” party by turning a threat of murder into a reality by interfering. An investigation by the police may find you legally guilty of criminal negligence.
 
josephdavid - I agree with your points but must say there is no need to resort to calling people or their arguments pathetic. The Church, the Pope and it’s Bishops have consistently held that Capital Punishment is not inherently immoral - and supports it in limited cases. That said - CHESTERTONRULES is saying the Pope, the Bishops, and the Church is an accomplice to murder. His words speaks volumes as to his character - we don’t need to join his ranks.
 
👍
A hypothetical never reflects reality because it seldom gives more than one choice of action. In this case your choices are to kill or do nothing. But I will answer your question from my ethical POV.

If it appeared that a person was attempting to murder another person, I would do my best to stop the murderer. The victim does not have to be innocent for me to act.

My intent would be to stop the potential murder, not to kill. I would make every effort based on this intent. I would start by calling 911 and asking them what I should do based on the scene I was witnessing. I would then take the action they recommend. I would be yelling “stop the police are coming” at the top of my lungs.

You hypothetical assumes that the victim is innocent (You have now way of knowing that). It assumes that the “murderer” is not in fact acting in self defense (You have no way of knowing that). Your intent is to kill someone based on these assumptions. If you act, you are therefore guilty of killing. You may unintentionally kill the “innocent” party by turning a threat of murder into a reality by interfering. An investigation by the police may find you legally guilty of criminal negligence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top