B
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Read it, and am not surprised.
It is an unfortunate thing that many do not have a true grasp of ‘pro life’
I have often pointed out the iconsistancy with many prolife people that are in support of killing a prisoner when the prisoner could easily be locked in prison forever.
If someone is not consistantly pro-life, they will always be vulnerable to the argument posed in the article. And they may lose because of it.
It is an unfortunate thing that many do not have a true grasp of ‘pro life’
I have often pointed out the iconsistancy with many prolife people that are in support of killing a prisoner when the prisoner could easily be locked in prison forever.
If someone is not consistantly pro-life, they will always be vulnerable to the argument posed in the article. And they may lose because of it.
M
mlchance
Guest
There is no moral equivalence between the state executing a convicted murderer and a “doctor” killing an unborn child. Unless, of course, abortions are being performed on unborn children who’ve been convicted of capital crimes.I have often pointed out the iconsistancy with many prolife people that are in support of killing a prisoner when the prisoner could easily be locked in prison forever.
What’s more, the link in the OP address IVF, not the death penalty. IVF, embryonic stem cell research, and abortion all flow from the same common worldview: that unborn human life is a commodity.
Again, this is hardly applicable to capital punishment.
– Mark L. Chance.
The comparison fails if you are trying to place a measure on the worth of a human life.There is no moral equivalence between the state executing a convicted murderer and a “doctor” killing an unborn child. Unless, of course, abortions are being performed on unborn children who’ve been convicted of capital crimes.
What’s more, the link in the OP address IVF, not the death penalty. IVF, embryonic stem cell research, and abortion all flow from the same common worldview: that unborn human life is a commodity.
Again, this is hardly applicable to capital punishment.
– Mark L. Chance.
Human life, all human life, is precious in the eyes of God.
To believe that a conviction by a court of law makes a life worth less to God is wrong.
To believe that taking a life when there are other options available is likewise wrong.
It is not logically consistant to maintain taking a life is acceptable under the circumstances described.
Now if there is no other way to protect the life of others, that changes the equation.
And you are missing something. The OP pointed out ‘inconsistancies’
And that is a major inconsistancy.
As is IVF.
B
bones_IV
Guest
The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. That’s the way Father John Corapi explained it. Your argument holds no ground.The comparison fails if you are trying to place a measure on the worth of a human life.
Human life, all human life, is precious in the eyes of God.
To believe that a conviction by a court of law makes a life worth less to God is wrong.
To believe that taking a life when there are other options available is likewise wrong.
It is not logically consistant to maintain taking a life is acceptable under the circumstances described.
Now if there is no other way to protect the life of others, that changes the equation.
And you are missing something. The OP pointed out ‘inconsistancies’
And that is a major inconsistancy.
As is IVF.
R
ricko
Guest
As with war, legitimate diversity of opinion on capital punishment is founded on prudential judgment. The Church acknowledges that the state has the right to execute criminals in certain circumstances (cf. CCC 2266). Whether or not those circumstances are met in a particular case belongs to the competence of the judicial system and not to the Church. Judges and juries are the ones who must apply their prudential judgment to the facts of a particular case.
R
Riley259
Guest
Yes, allowing IVF was a slipperly slope and now we can clearly see why.
While it is true that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil, it does not show that my argument is in any way wrong.The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. That’s the way Father John Corapi explained it. Your argument holds no ground.
It does however show that my remarks are not being read completely or that some other meaning then the one I intended is being ‘read into’ it…
My argument is the destruction of a human life, when there are alternatives, is evil. And that the inconsistancies of supporting one type of death over another when there are alternatives to each is going to place the pro-life argument at a decided disadvantage.
The pro-life position longer can be viewed as pro-life.
Instead it becomes viewed as pro-only certain types of life.
B
bones_IV
Guest
Apples and oranges. There is no comparison between the death penalty and abortion. You need to study the Catholic faith.While it is true that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil, it does not show that my argument is in any way wrong.
It does however show that my remarks are not being read completely or that some other meaning then the one I intended is being ‘read into’ it…
My argument is the destruction of a human life, when there are alternatives, is evil. And that the inconsistancies of supporting one type of death over another when there are alternatives to each is going to place the pro-life argument at a decided disadvantage.
The pro-life position longer can be viewed as pro-life.
Instead it becomes viewed as pro-only certain types of life.
I find it interesting to hear that.Apples and oranges. There is no comparison between the death penalty and abortion. You need to study the Catholic faith.
It is precisely because of years of study that I have come to the conclusion I have.
I believed strongly in the death penalty for many years before reaching the conclusion.
Perhaps you can quote the Catechism and show where my viewpoint is an error. I’d love to hear it. I’ve been wrestling with a viewpoint that I do not like for years.
Apples and oranges? What is the precise difference?
I know, everyone says that the unborn is innocent, a criminal is not. I used to say that myself.
But who exactly are we protecting in executing a criminal?
Is it simply not possible to insure the protection of society in any other way? If we have the ability to put someone in prison and insure that they harm no one ever again, then what is the motivation in the execution?
Abortion, IVF, the death penalty…They all make a statement of the society’s view of life.
B
bones_IV
Guest
First off, the state has the right to carry out the death penalty. That is to protect the people from dangerous criminals and to enforce the common good. Death penalty can be used in the most extreme circumstances like that of Saddam Hussein. Let me ask you a question, would you punish your kids if they do something wrong?I find it interesting to hear that.
It is precisely because of years of study that I have come to the conclusion I have.
I believed strongly in the death penalty for many years before reaching the conclusion.
Perhaps you can quote the Catechism and show where my viewpoint is an error. I’d love to hear it. I’ve been wrestling with a viewpoint that I do not like for years.
Apples and oranges? What is the precise difference?
I know, everyone says that the unborn is innocent, a criminal is not. I used to say that myself.
But who exactly are we protecting in executing a criminal?
Is it simply not possible to insure the protection of society in any other way? If we have the ability to put someone in prison and insure that they harm no one ever again, then what is the motivation in the execution?
Abortion, IVF, the death penalty…They all make a statement of the society’s view of life.
D
Della
Guest
But, we do not have the ability to ensure that anyone in prison cannot do any more harm. There are many ways more harm can be done to their victims, the victims’ families, and to those they feel put them into prison. People being attacked and/or killed by someone hired by an imprisoned criminal are a fact of life, too.But who exactly are we protecting in executing a criminal?
Is it simply not possible to insure the protection of society in any other way? If we have the ability to put someone in prison and insure that they harm no one ever again, then what is the motivation in the execution?
No, that’s not so. Abortion, contraception, IVF, are all methods of controlling who will and who won’t be born, which makes those persons non-persons in the eyes of the law–mere commodities to be bought and sold.Abortion, IVF, the death penalty…They all make a statement of the society’s view of life.
A condemned criminal is paying for his/her crimes in the only way the state can ensure any sort of justice for their victims and their victims’ loved ones. It may be the death penalty or life in prison but the object is the same. No one is being classified as a non-person who is executed for a capital crime.
What we need is better safeguards so that we don’t execute those who don’t deserve such a sentence or those who are innocent. And that is a matter for government, and so us, to take care of by the laws we pass and the way we vote.
E
estesbob
Guest
Although I am opposed to the death pentaly we should never claim that there is a moral equivalency between abortion and the death penalty. For starters our Church condemns abortion in no uncertain terms but has always accepted the death penalty, at least in principle.Read it, and am not surprised.
It is an unfortunate thing that many do not have a true grasp of ‘pro life’
I have often pointed out the iconsistancy with many prolife people that are in support of killing a prisoner when the prisoner could easily be locked in prison forever.
If someone is not consistantly pro-life, they will always be vulnerable to the argument posed in the article. And they may lose because of it.
I would argue that it can be.But, we do not have the ability to ensure that anyone in prison cannot do any more harm.
There are many examples of someone going to prison for the rest of their life, and never being capable of harming another.
The technology is not difficult.
The problem would be in attempting to give these prisoners rights that they no longer deserve.
In any case, my real point is the inconsistancy demonstrated by those that lay claim to a pro-life position, but also cling to a misapplication of the death penalty.
B
bones_IV
Guest
How may I ask? Please do provide that evidence.I would argue that it can be.
There are many examples of someone going to prison for the rest of their life, and never being capable of harming another.
The technology is not difficult.
The problem would be in attempting to give these prisoners rights that they no longer deserve.
In any case, my real point is the inconsistancy demonstrated by those that lay claim to a pro-life position, but also cling to a misapplication of the death penalty.
I am uncertain I understand the question.How may I ask? Please do provide that evidence.
Please specify what you are looking for.
Are you looking for a dissertation on how supermax prisons operate?
B
bones_IV
Guest
No, no, and no. You’ve got it all wrong.In any case, my real point is the inconsistancy demonstrated by those that lay claim to a pro-life position, but also cling to a misapplication of the death penalty.
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.
Capital punishment is not the same as abortion meaning that abortion is the direct killing of an innocent human being I would suggest that you read a few analyses of what the Church stand on capital punishment really is:
ewtn.com/expert/answers/capital_punishment.htm
Please read it.
I did.No, no, and no. You’ve got it all wrong.
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.
Allow me to reiterate…
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.
I believe my interpretation here is correct.
Your own quotation from the Catechism proves this.
If it is possible to prevent someone from harming another for the rest of their life (lock them away forever) then the application of the death penalty is a misapplication.
And those that support such a misapplication while claiming to be pro-life have a major inconsistancy to account for in their logic.
As the title of the thread says: “Inconsistancies Abound”
B
bones_IV
Guest
No it doesn’t you ignored the statement by Geraghty.I did.
Allow me to reiterate…
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.
I believe my interpretation here is correct.
Your own quotation from the Catechism proves this.
If it is possible to prevent someone from harming another for the rest of their life (lock them away forever) then the application of the death penalty is a misapplication.
And those that support such a misapplication while claiming to be pro-life have a major inconsistancy to account for in their logic.
As the title of the thread says: “Inconsistancies Abound”
“It fact, it would be contrary to Church teaching to say that capital punishment is per se immoral, as some do. Rather, the Pope states that the conditions of modern society argue against it’s use in all but rare cases. It is simply becoming harder and harder to argue that a particular act of capital punishment is circumstantially necessary (the third element of a good moral act). The Pope is NOT substituting his judgment for the political prudence of those who must make decisions about when to use capital punishment. He is teaching principles and making a general evaluation about modern circumstances.”
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Vz, I agree with you that in America today, I don’t see any justifiable reason to execute even the most evil perpetrators of the most heinous crimes. However, this is my prudential judgment. Unlike you, I respect that other good “pro-lifers” may reach a different prudential judgment in certain circumstances. And, furthermore, unlike you, I don’t think the anti-abortion cause is helped by an “unbroken line” (as opposed to a dotted line) linkage of abortion and the death penalty.The comparison fails if you are trying to place a measure on the worth of a human life.
Human life, all human life, is precious in the eyes of God.
To believe that a conviction by a court of law makes a life worth less to God is wrong.
To believe that taking a life when there are other options available is likewise wrong.
It is not logically consistant to maintain taking a life is acceptable under the circumstances described.
Now if there is no other way to protect the life of others, that changes the equation.
And you are missing something. The OP pointed out ‘inconsistancies’
And that is a major inconsistancy.
As is IVF.
The gravity of a wrong always includes the object (victim) against whom the wrong is committed. Even if it is “wrong” to execute anyone in America today, the gravity of legally executing a heinous criminal is not equal to that of executing an innocent unborn baby.
I do think there is a philosophical purpose by using a “dotted line” linkage though. If I’m willing to tolerate the continued ability of an evil murderer to live, it certainly makes it easier to ask that an pregnant woman tolerate the continued ability for a innocent baby to live.
IMHO, it is this “dotted line” linkage that is appropriate and better serves the cause of both abortion and the elimination of the death penalty.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.