Is it licit for Governors to pardon unrepentant criminals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mythbuster1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The wages of sin is death. If women die in illegal abortions, it is because they did not heed the warning. Their blood is on their own heads.
 
“Licit” here means “not sinful.” Public officials will give an account to God for their service.
 
Well, then whether public office or private citizen, we are in the same boat…therefore it is licit for private citizens to demand no mercy be shown even to those we consider unrepentant? Is anyone righteous enough to take on the role that exclusively the domain of God?
 
mythbuster1 said:
The wages of sin is death. If women die in illegal abortions, it is because they did not heed the warning. Their blood is on their own heads.
Click to expand...
This is blatantly false and offensive.
Mortal sin requires not just grave matter, but knowledge, and full consent…to say a women who dies in an illegal abortion has no salvation is judgmental.
There are plenty of women forced to be party to abortion, or succumb to abortion out of the stress of desperation.
Its akin to saying anyone who commits suicide is doomed to hell, or anyone involved in an event that is grave matter, because of addiction deserves damnation.
I’m glad God is the arbitrator of Divine Mercy (a special day this coming Sunday) instead of man.
Just weeks ago we read of the woman guilty of adultery, and how Jesus granted her mercy, and the crowd of righteous left her to live…that should be food for thought.
 
I didn’t judge her damned; I judged her guilty of suicide, which, objectively speaking, she is.
 
To elaborate on before, no part of this scheme would be moral or just.
mythbuster1 said:
Suppose the Governor of a state told abortionists that if they did not shut down, he would pardon murderers convicted of killing abortionists, who are adamant about the righteousness of their cause and not repentant in the slightest. Would doing so be licit?
Click to expand...
Civil authorities have a duty spelt out in canon law and the catechism to protect public safety. Releasing unrepentant murderers, without a grave just cause (such as their sentence expiring) is not licit. The governor has a positive moral duty to protect the public, even when the public is engaged in grossly immoral (but sadly legal) conduct.
There are two moral issues here: 1. Can the Governor use his pardon power to threaten people engaging in otherwise legal behavior?
Click to expand...
No. If fact the legislature would have duty to impeach and remove the governor, if permitted by the state constitution. The governor would be guilty of gross deriliction of duty.

2. Would it constitute scandal to pardon an unrepentant criminal.
Click to expand...

The open corruption shown by the governor by allowing dangerous criminals out of jail to harm those the governor disagrees with is unquestionably a moral and political scandal.
Beryllos said:
Keep those ideas coming.
Click to expand...
Please do not encouraged the OP. Both ideas are objectively terrible and fail any competent moral analysis.
 
Last edited:
How is sinking Women on Waves, whose explicit purpose is showing contempt for the nation’s laws in order to perform abortions, objectively wrong?
 
mythbuster1 said:
Now, if the killer were sincerely repentant and committed to nonviolence going forward, would that change the assessment? In this case, the only threat would be in the paranoia of the abortionists, as it is written, “The wicked man flees, though no one pursues him.”
Click to expand...
Why do you call it paranoia?

If we changed the scenario to where the murderer had killed for another reason - say he had murdered priests because he believed them all complicit in molesting children - would it be paranoia to fear if the governor started to release them early? Even if the governor believed the killer truly repentant?
 
Last edited:
I call it paranoia because it is the product of a guilty conscience. “The wicked man flees, though no one pursues him,” means that the wicked man’s conscience causes him to flee from imaginary threats, threats he imagines precisely because he knows what he deserves.
 
I’ll humor you, but to live up up to your username, you need to develop a stronger sense of what scenarios are morally plausible; otherwise, you are spreading myths!

If a boat has a flag from a country where abortion is legal, then abortion is legal on that boat.

Sinking a boat engaged in lawful activities is an ACT OF WAR.

Such a boat would not perform abortions within the territorial seas of a nation that prohibited abortion, because the boat would be impounded.

Women would instead get on another boat that transported them to the abortion boat in international waters.

Women who get on a boat and sail to international waters do nothing objectively immoral. Sinking such a boat merely transporting the women out of the country is murder. (Impounding the transport boat, however, might be justified).

There is simply no legal way to destroy an abortion boat. Even if you rationalized it morally, it is an act of war, and risks retaliation from the other boat’s country of origin.
 
Last edited:
And my assessment is that the abortion ship is a pirate ship, and therefore hostis humani generis. They are engaged in descent by sea to engage in violence, which makes them pirates. Every nation has the right to defend themselves from pirates with extreme prejudice. To wit, if any survivors were captured by the offended nation’s Navy, it would be entirely legal for them to hang them from the yardarm (subject only to the laws of the offended nation).
 
Can we who call ourselves pro-life maybe come up with ways to discourage abortion that don’t involve, y’know, killing people???

LawyersGunsandMoney may be off the mark when he suggests promoting contraception specifically, but there are plenty of other ways in line with Church teaching that we can act to reduce the demand for abortion without looking like crazy murdery people.
 
Last edited:
That is not the legal definition of piracy.

Illegally sinking a ship is an act of war, and risks retaliation. The other country also has a right to defend itself, and any ships flying it’s flag.

For example, if the abortion boat were an American boat, the country that sank it would potentially have it’s entire sunk in retaliation by United States Navy.
 
Last edited:
Sailing into another country’s port to perform abortions in violation of that nation’s laws is an act of aggression. Granting a letter of marque to attack another nation’s shipping (i.e. approving acts of piracy against the target nation) is an act of war.
 
The abortion boat would never enter the other country’s port for that very reason. Women would be transported in another boat to it.
 
A ship need not engage in attacks of piracy itself in order to be regarded as a pirate ship. Conspiracy to commit piracy is piracy under international law. Merely working on a pirate ship makes you guilty of piracy, without having engaged in any violent actions personally.
 
A floating abortion clinic that floats off the coast of nation’s where abortion is illegal.
 
All abortion ships belong to another country. If you sink one, that country will retaliate. It does not matter if you claim it was a pirate ship.

If you commit an act of war, you had better be prepared to defend that act.
 
Last edited:
mythbuster1 said:
The wages of sin is death. If women die in illegal abortions, it is because they did not heed the warning. Their blood is on their own heads.
Click to expand...
I do not understand you. So if it is OK for women to die in an abortion…are you sending a death squad after the father?? This is the ridiculous kind of comment made by men and as far as I can see most of the other things you have proposed. Death does not need more death. Are you trying to create precedent for a vigilante society? See below for the reality of things.
Inquisitor85 said:
So women who need terminations still seek them, but in less safe conditions and are more likely to die as a result, then you’ve added more deaths by having murderers running around killing abortionists.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I’d love to stop abortions, but the reality is they will happen whether they are legal or not. If they are legal, you can regulate them, not so if they are illegal. If you really care about the baby, even if you can’t save them, you’d want this done by trained professionals in sanitary conditions. Illegal abortions are not going to be done in such situations and will not attract the most savory practitioners. If they have medical training, it can easily attract those with marginal abilities. The whole point being the chance of the abortion inflicting more pain or prolonged death is much less if legal.

Then we have reality:
  • Who is making the father responsible?
  • Are women to have no choice but to die if the pregnancy becomes life threatening? What about a family left behind?
  • Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? Are you willing to provide better support to poor mothers? Like child care such that they can actually get work and/or something better than a menial job?
  • If we are to try to adopt out children, are you willing to support wards of the state? About 650,000 abortions occur every year. At best 100,000 to 150,000 kids are adopted out every year. If we are to support the remaining 500,000, we will end up with something like 8-9 million kids to raise through 18.
Think about it.

This is a bit of a personal rant. If you are a Baby Boomer or even an early gen-Xer ranting about degenerating standards for younger people’s relationships causing abortions, please chasten yourselves. Between the late 70s to mid 90s the abortion count ranged between 1.1 and 1.4 million, it’s half of that now. It’s even worse when you consider per ca pita abortions as the population has risen by about 100 million people between now and 1980. You were killing my siblings and I at a rate 2-3 times higher than we have our offspring.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top