Philly Abortion Doctor Gosnell May Face Death

[colmywaykurtz]

Please lets not derail the thread. I think it would be a tragedy for this man to be given the death penalty. However the Catholic Church does not now nor ever has precluded the use of capital punishment.

How so, Bob?

I mean, if many pro-life people are equating abortion with murder (as many no doubt do in this forum), it seems they would be open to having at least some abortion-performing doctors be charged with murder, in order to be morally consistent. And few cases could be more open-and-shut in that regard than this one.

To be fair, I don’t know if you’re one of those people who is open to having abortion doctors and the women who procure their services be charged with murder–but this opens an interesting sidelight discussion.

How many pro-life people TRULY equate abortion with murder, and how many assign it a somewhat lesser degree of egregiousness? AND, can it truly be equated with murder if it (unlike murder) never receives the ultimate penalty?

This could be a fault-line lying in wait just below the surface of the apparent solidarity of the pro-life movement, waiting to split it apart.

 

[st_lucy]

How so, Bob?

I mean, if many pro-life people are equating abortion with murder (as many no doubt do in this forum), it seems they would be open to having at least some abortion-performing doctors be charged with murder, in order to be morally consistent. And few cases could be more open-and-shut in that regard than this one.

To be fair, I don’t know if you’re one of those people who is open to having abortion doctors and the women who procure their services get the death penalty–but this opens an interesting sidelight discussion.

How many pro-life people TRULY equate abortion with murder, and how many assign it a somewhat lesser degree of egregiousness?

This could be a fault-line lying in wait just below the surface of the apparent solidarity of the pro-life movement, waiting to split it apart.

Your thought process is a little faulty here. How can anyone equat an innocent (unborn child) to a vicious murder (Gosnell)

I personally don’t think that anyone should get a the death penality in this age that we are living in. We have the means to lock someone up for life. But if we happen to not be able to lock someone up for life we should eliminate those who are a danger to society. We cannot allow mass murders running around in the street. Just as if we are faced with a life and death situation we should always choose life. If someone was threating to kill my child and if I had the means I shoud be able to kill that person.

We cannot loose sight of the fact that innocent lives are not the same as non-innocent lives.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Your thought process is a little faulty here. How can anyone equat an innocent (unborn child) to a vicious murder (Gosnell)

I personally don’t think that anyone should get a the death penality in this age that we are living in. We have the means to lock someone up for life. But if we happen to not be able to lock someone up for life we should eliminate those who are a danger to society. We cannot allow mass murders running around in the street. Just as if we are faced with a life and death situation we should always choose life. If someone was threating to kill my child and if I had the means I shoud be able to kill that person.

We cannot loose sight of the fact that innocent lives are not the same as non-innocent lives.

If you look, you will see that I have deleted the post.

But I was not arguing to equate Gosnell with his victims. I merely argued that if NO abortion doctors EVER get the death penalty, it undermines the legal equation of abortion with murder–if we in fact DO equate them. The possibility has been raised here of making abortion (in a de facto sense) a crime, but one less egregious than murder.

That’s what I’m trying to say here.

 

[Suudy]

But I was not arguing to equate Gosnell with his victims. I merely argued that if NO abortion doctors EVER get the death penalty, it undermines the legal equation of abortion with murder–if we in fact DO equate them. The possibility has been raised here of making abortion (in a de facto sense) a crime, but one less egregious than murder.

Your line of reasoning still doesn’t make sense. The fact that no abortion doctor would never get the death penalty doesn’t change the underlying fact that abortion is murder. Many Catholics oppose the death penalty, and to do so in this case doesn’t undermine any argument.

However, I do think that all pro-life people would think that the punishment for performing an abortion should be treated legally the same as any other premeditated murder. If the lex locorum calls for capital punishment, then the opposition would not be because it is a lesser crime than murder, but because one opposes the use of capital punishment in all cases.

But to be clear, many of the pro-life people I know (including those in our pro-life committee) think the abortionist should bear the majority of the blame. Often those trying to procure abortion are scared, stressed, or otherwise lack the full consent of their will. However, the abortionist is not so hindered, and knows exactly what he/she is doing.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

[QUOTEI do think that all pro-life people would think that the punishment for performing an abortion should be treated legally the same as any other premeditated murder. If the *lex locorum calls for capital punishment, then the opposition would not be because it is a lesser crime than murder, but because one opposes the use of capital punishment in all cases.

Well, I think you’re showing some inconsistency yourself here.

Can I infer that, when you say you think a “punishment” should be “treated legally” the same, that you mean the same legal penalty should be assigned?

Can I further infer that, when you say that opposition to such a penalty (assuming it’s the death penalty) stems from opposition to the use of capital punishment in all cases, you mean that same legal penalty should NOT be assigned in some cases?

I mean, that’s what it comes out to, in the final analysis. Hence, my use of the phrase “de facto.”

It would seem you’re emphasizing style over substance here.

 

[Suudy]

Can I infer that, when you say you think a “punishment” should be “treated legally” the same, that you mean the same legal penalty should be assigned?

What I mean is that the legal system should operate the same when prosecuting someone accused of premeditated murder as one who is accused with performing an abortion. Whatever the local laws dictate should apply. Now, whether that includes the death penalty is an issue of local law, and the decision to apply the death penalty should be made using whatever procedure the local law dictates.

Can I further infer that, when you say that opposition to such a penalty (assuming it’s the death penalty) stems from opposition to the use of capital punishment in all cases, you mean that same legal penalty should NOT be assigned in some cases?

I’m not understanding your point here. I’m saying that opposition to the death penalty is independent of the crime for which it proscribed by law. Many Catholics (and many non-Catholics) think there is no legitimate use of capital punishment, under any circumstance. This position is held in all cases, not some cases, as you state above. Thus those that hold that abortion is murder would argue that it should be prosecuted as murder in all cases, and that the death penalty should not be an option in **all **cases.

I mean, that’s what it comes out to, in the final analysis. Hence, my use of the phrase “de facto.”

It would seem you’re emphasizing style over substance here.

It seems to me you are focusing on the ends while ignoring the means.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Your line of reasoning still doesn’t make sense. The fact that no abortion doctor would never get the death penalty doesn’t change the underlying fact that abortion is murder. Many Catholics oppose the death penalty, and to do so in this case doesn’t undermine any argument.

However, I do think that all pro-life people would think that the punishment for performing an abortion should be treated legally the same as any other premeditated murder. If the lex locorum calls for capital punishment, then the opposition would not be because it is a lesser crime than murder, but because one opposes the use of capital punishment in all cases.

But to be clear, many of the pro-life people I know (including those in our pro-life committee) think the abortionist should bear the majority of the blame. Often those trying to procure abortion are scared, stressed, or otherwise lack the full consent of their will. However, the abortionist is not so hindered, and knows exactly what he/she is doing.

You’ve put it very well. Thank you for expessing what I think in a way I am not able to do.

I oppose the death penalty in every situation but one, and that situation is when it is impossible to keep a murderer removed from the public. And the only scenario I can envision in which I would condone the death penalty is a rather ridiculous one of having people shipwrecked on an island with one of them murdering the others.

I also agree that the abortionist should bear the majority of the blame, and for the reasons you have listed.

 

[Ender]

The argument I see most often is that killing any human being is a violation of Universal Law.

This claim is clearly incorrect as the Church directly contradicts it:

“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” (Catechism of Pius X)

Allegedly? That shows an assumption.

Your opposition to assumptions appears to depend on whether or not they support your opinions.

"one reason could be that some people truly value human life while others haven’t been fully inspired yet " - hxcCatholic413
“Yes - that could be one reason. I agree.” - Catharina
"I agree, too. " - LittleSoldier

• And God has the right to decide when a person dies, not us. No, this is incorrect as well. The Church teaches that the State also has this right.
• If we end his life we are aborting him. No, we are executing him; those are two very different things.
• Two wrongs don’t make a right. True, but capital punishment is not a wrong. That’s why the Church allows it.
• He does not deserve to be killed. Well, that’s kind of what the debate is all about.
• Church teaching is clear. If he can be kept out of society without being killed, he should not be killed. That is the current opinion; Church teaching on the matter is anything but clear.

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Often those trying to procure abortion are scared, stressed, or otherwise lack the full consent of their will. However, the abortionist is not so hindered, and knows exactly what he/she is doing.

“Often” is right, but based on what I knew of my wife’s alternatives-to-abortion work some decades ago, some of the women who were procuring abortions knew exactly what they were doing and did do with consent of their wills.

Now, ought they face a charge of murder like the abortionist, given that they did have a clear understanding of what they were doing?

I’d say yes, but one would be hard pressed to find a Legislature willing to impose life imprisonment on the women, regardless of their culpability.

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

If you consider life without parole to be the merciful sentence then you also have to accept that death is the just sentence.

Why?

A just sentence is one for which the severity of the punishment is commensurate with the severity of the crime; a merciful sentence is one where the severity of the sentence is reduced below what the just strictly sentence would demand. If you believe that mercy obliges us to sentence murderers to life without parole, then what could the just sentence be if not execution? The merciful sentence must be less severe than the just sentence - how else could it be considered merciful? - but the only sentence more severe than life without parole is death, therefore if you argue that life without parole is the merciful sentence you have to accept that execution is the just sentence.

Ender

 

[Suudy]

I’d say yes, but one would be hard pressed to find a Legislature willing to impose life imprisonment on the women, regardless of their culpability.

And were to law to be fairly applied, it would look at the state of mind of the woman. Just as there are mitigating circumstances now (e.g. manslaughter vs murder), it similarly could apply in the case of abortion. I liken this to the hired hitman. If a person fears for their life (say an abused spouse) and hires someone to kill their tormentor, who bears the greater share of the blame? But in all cases, the hitman is cognizant of what he is doing and consents to it, even if his “employer” does is not. And abortionists are no different than hitmen in this sense.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

A just sentence is one for which the severity of the punishment is commensurate with the severity of the crime; a merciful sentence is one where the severity of the sentence is reduced below what the just strictly sentence would demand. If you believe that mercy obliges us to sentence murderers to life without parole, then what could the just sentence be if not execution? The merciful sentence must be less severe than the just sentence - how else could it be considered merciful? - but the only sentence more severe than life without parole is death, therefore if you argue that life without parole is the merciful sentence you have to accept that execution is the just sentence.

What jurisdiction are you speaking of? In many states, the just sentence for murder is life imprisonment without parole, and the merciful one might be life or 40 to life.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

But in all cases, the hitman is cognizant of what he is doing and consents to it, even if his “employer” does is not. And abortionists are no different than hitmen in this sense.

In my state at least, women, including in a few notorious cases, have been found guilty of murder when they’ve hired a hitman, and received a more severe sentence than the “instrument” they used to kill their husbands with.

Unless mitigating circumstances clearly apply, I’d put the woman away, just as with the abortionist.

 

[st_lucy]

“Often” is right, but based on what I knew of my wife’s alternatives-to-abortion work some decades ago, some of the women who were procuring abortions knew exactly what they were doing and did do with consent of their wills.

Now, ought they face a charge of murder like the abortionist, given that they did have a clear understanding of what they were doing?

I’d say yes, but one would be hard pressed to find a Legislature willing to impose life imprisonment on the women, regardless of their culpability.

I agree there are many women who go for abortion without force, but even then these women are lied to and they do believe the lie that the child they are carrying is not human (as so many other americans also believe). Now does this make them innocent? Not as innocent as those who are forced, but diffenently not as guilty as the abortionist and nurses who help.

When a woman goes in for an abortion she is put on painkillers or other meds and is not aware of what is happening but the abortionist is the one who is pulling out little arms and legs and disposing of them as if they were just a bio-hazzard. They know full well what is going on and so they need to be charged fully.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I agree there are many women who go for abortion without force, but even then these women are lied to and they do believe the lie that the child they are carrying is not human (as so many other americans also believe). Now does this make them innocent? Not as innocent as those who are forced, but diffenently not as guilty as the abortionist and nurses who help.

That goes to mitigating circumstances. Ordinarily, if I hire someone to kill another, I’m as guilty as the shooter. But there might be reasons to mitigate my guilt. Same with the women - absent mitigating circumstances, I’d lock them up like the abortionist (hitman).

 

[Ender]

What jurisdiction are you speaking of? In many states, the just sentence for murder is life imprisonment without parole, and the merciful one might be life or 40 to life.

Jurisdiction is irrelevant. The severity of the sentence must be determined by the severity of the crime and severity does not vary from one jurisdiction to the next or from one age to the next. This is why it must be true that if execution was a just punishment in the past it must be equally just today since the severity of murder surely cannot change with time. Clearly circumstances can differ from one crime to the next but murder in the fifth century was exactly as severe a crime as murder today.

Ender

 

[LittleSoldier]

This claim is clearly incorrect as the Church directly contradicts it:

“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” (Catechism of Pius X)

Really? There is Church teaching that says the argument I see most often is clearly incorrect? I wasn’t aware the Church even knew what argument I have seen most often. Wow. How could the claim that the argument I see used most often being a violation of Universal Law be incorrect? I’m the one seeing the argument, not the Magisterium. Not the Vatican. Just me.

Your opposition to assumptions appears to depend on whether or not they support your opinions.

My opposition is to the assumption made that when a man “allegedly” laughs he laughs. If I had heard him laugh it wouldn’t be an assumption. The word “allegedly” changes it to an assumption.

And I certainly can agree with hypothetical statements. If you check you can see that the term “could be” was used. I agreed with that. It “could be” a reason. I’m not stating it is a reason, only that it could be.

As to the rest of your post:

When you respond inside a quote you not only change my words, but when I try to reply all I get is what appears outside the quote, which is nothing. Please don’t change my quotes. If you wish to respond to something I have said, please have the courtesy to quote what I have stated and then respond. It shouldn’t be up to me to clean up the quote you have changed so that I can respond to the points you have made.

This is what I see when quoting your response to me (the part where you inserted your response into my actual quote):

.

 

[LittleSoldier]

A just sentence is one for which the severity of the punishment is commensurate with the severity of the crime; a merciful sentence is one where the severity of the sentence is reduced below what the just strictly sentence would demand. If you believe that mercy obliges us to sentence murderers to life without parole, then what could the just sentence be if not execution? The merciful sentence must be less severe than the just sentence - how else could it be considered merciful? - but the only sentence more severe than life without parole is death, therefore if you argue that life without parole is the merciful sentence you have to accept that execution is the just sentence.

Ender

Are the definitions of “just sentence” and “merciful sentence” your personal definitions?

 

[colmywaykurtz]

I believe they do just that in Nicaragua.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Jurisdiction is irrelevant. The severity of the sentence must be determined by the severity of the crime and severity does not vary from one jurisdiction to the next or from one age to the next. This is why it must be true that if execution was a just punishment in the past it must be equally just today since the severity of murder surely cannot change with time. Clearly circumstances can differ from one crime to the next but murder in the fifth century was exactly as severe a crime as murder today.

Ender

Jurisdiction IS relevant in a real-life implementation of a ban on abortion, which perforce would have to be done on a state-by-state basis, consonant with the laws of each state.

Just overturning Roe v Wade, followed by a magical one-size-fits-all solution where penalties are concerned, is not going to happen.