C
- Status
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
They were pro-choicers and may be condemned for that, but neither was an abortionist (one who induces or performs abortions).
E
estesbob
Guest
They abdicated their responsibility to protect the citizens of Pennsylvania. Not only that but they both support what was going on in the clinic ,they oppose only the manner in which it was conducted. From the standpoint of the child it makes little difference whether his brains are sucked out before he exited the womb or after he exited the womb. And that is the great contradiction of the pro-abortion movement -what is found as heinous one moment is considered to be a fundamental right for women a moment earlier.
Both of these men are complicit in the horror that occurred in that clinic as are those who voted for them.
E
Ender
Guest
Gruesomeness aside - and I mean in no way to diminish the horror of his actions - this case presents some very interesting possibilities. Gosnell may be charged with murder for the killing of babies after they had been born, but an even bigger issue may be that he could also be charged with performing illegal late term abortions under Pennsylvania law. (I got this from an excellent article in National Review Online - nationalreview.com/articles/258707/gosnell-case-and-american-abortion-law-matthew-j-franck?page=1 )
Doe v Bolton, decided by SCOTUS the same day as Roe v Wade, allowed states to put limits on late term abortions but included a hugh - and vague - health-of-the-mother exception. Pennsylvania under Governor Casey enacted a specific law regulating late term abortions but it included a very specific health-of-the-mother exception, which Gosnell’s abortions surely did not meet.
So - if the AG decides to prosecute those charges it will almost surely go back to the Supreme Court and they can either say that the Pennsylvania law is in accord with what they had in mind … or they can put themselves on the side of defending Gosnell’s actions. All in all, we should really hope that the AG decides to prosecute those charges.
Another aspect of this case that won’t be pretty is that it would appear on the surface (and my knowledge of the case is superficial) that Gosnell’s actions would have been protected (in Illinois) had Obama’s position opposing the “born alive” measure been sustained. That’s another interesting aspect of this situation.
In any event, I hope that the DA not only charges Gosnell with violating the state’s prohibition against late term abortions (which would be the first such charges brought under this law) but that he also seeks the death penalty if for no other reason (and there are others) than bringing more controversy - and therefore making this an even bigger story than it is now.
Ender
Doe v Bolton, decided by SCOTUS the same day as Roe v Wade, allowed states to put limits on late term abortions but included a hugh - and vague - health-of-the-mother exception. Pennsylvania under Governor Casey enacted a specific law regulating late term abortions but it included a very specific health-of-the-mother exception, which Gosnell’s abortions surely did not meet.
So - if the AG decides to prosecute those charges it will almost surely go back to the Supreme Court and they can either say that the Pennsylvania law is in accord with what they had in mind … or they can put themselves on the side of defending Gosnell’s actions. All in all, we should really hope that the AG decides to prosecute those charges.
Another aspect of this case that won’t be pretty is that it would appear on the surface (and my knowledge of the case is superficial) that Gosnell’s actions would have been protected (in Illinois) had Obama’s position opposing the “born alive” measure been sustained. That’s another interesting aspect of this situation.
In any event, I hope that the DA not only charges Gosnell with violating the state’s prohibition against late term abortions (which would be the first such charges brought under this law) but that he also seeks the death penalty if for no other reason (and there are others) than bringing more controversy - and therefore making this an even bigger story than it is now.
Ender
J
JW10631
Guest
Rich,
Do not hand me this “pro-choice” garbage. You and I know full well what the Abortionist Left means when they say “pro-choice”.
There is no “choice” to invest Social Security taxes in private investments.
There is no “choice” in selecting a school for tax money to go to for your children.
your children.
There is no “choice” for the baby condemned to death in the abortion procedure.
Rich, you are a left wing troll. People who support abortion are abortionists whether or not they perform the procedure. if you don’t like my terms, then go pound sand.
E
Ender
Guest
Kermit Gosnell killed babies as dispassionately as a farmer dispatching unwanted litters of kittens. It is not the demand for his execution that diminishes our respect for life, it is our failure to demand it. To insist that the just punishment in this case is merely to put him in prison - so he can no longer practice infanticide - is not only to misunderstand the meaning of justice but to dismiss its importance altogether.
We have been told that to execute someone is to diminish his humanity and that it contributes to a “culture of death”, but what kind of culture is it that cannot bring itself to make an unequivocal statement that some behaviors are so heinous, so perverted, that those who practice them will pay with their lives for having engaged in them?
Ender
We have been told that to execute someone is to diminish his humanity and that it contributes to a “culture of death”, but what kind of culture is it that cannot bring itself to make an unequivocal statement that some behaviors are so heinous, so perverted, that those who practice them will pay with their lives for having engaged in them?
Ender
J
joly
Guest
I’m not for the death penalty, however there is a bit of irony here. The fact that he MAY face the death penalty. By law having his choice to live in the hands of someone else.
E
Ender
Guest
I’d be happy to discuss your opinion should you care to express it. I recognize that a lot of countries - like yours - have disavowed the use of capital punishment as have a large number of Catholic bishops. Given all of that one would expect to find compelling arguments against its use, but the facts are otherwise: there doesn’t seem to be a significant argument against it at all, at least not one based on Catholic teaching. I don’t challenge your commitment to ending capital punishment but I do challenge the rationale behind your position.
Ender
Ender
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Why does there have to be a compelling reason to show mercy? Does the Church have to explain why mercy has merit?
S
st_lucy
Guest
I am sorry but we live in a time when we can lock a person up for life without having to kill them. This man may have a huge conversion while in prison this is what we as Catholics should be hoping for not for his death. We are not God and only God should be deciding when someone must/should die. I am always greatful that we have a just and merciful God who does not demand our death for our sins, He did that already for us.
I am disgusted with Kermit Gosnell’s action but I know that I do not live a life that can demand the death of another human. I will pray that he gets life in prison and a softening of his heart before he meets our loving God.
Suudy
Active member
There was a great article in “This Rock” some time ago. I did a quick search on (you guessed it) this site, and here it is:
catholic.com/thisrock/2010/1007fea4.asp
Just some food for thought.
catholic.com/thisrock/2010/1007fea4.asp
Just some food for thought.
C
catharina
Guest
That is the point, lucy. Yes, we live in a time when the dangerously
criminal can be locked away until natural death. It takes only
a moment of thought to see that allowing a man/woman to continue
living, in the hopes of conversion for him/her, speaks clearly
to the** infinite mercy of God**. Amen to that!
H
hxcCatholic413
Guest
lol even I won’t tackle this question
H
hxcCatholic413
Guest
I’ll (brief pause)…pray (pause)…for…you?
H
hxcCatholic413
Guest
killing people won’t influence future murderers in the long run one bit, BUT with love barriers can be broken!
T
Tigg
Guest
Even though the grand jury has faulted them, if the death penalty is sought, it’s a pity that the state agencies who ignored the reports cannot be held accountable for their crimes. It’s been reported that after 1993, there were no more inspections because the PA health department “abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all.”
E
Ender
Guest
This is not an argument; it is a comment meant to imply something without actually stating a position.
In any event, mercy does not trump justice; both are virtues and one does not have to be sacrificed to satisfy the other. Beyond that, this is a trickier argument than you might suppose - even if you didn’t mean to say that mercy should be shown in every case without exception.
If you consider life without parole to be the merciful sentence then you also have to accept that death is the just sentence. By definition mercy is a lesser sentence than justice would normally demand and the only sentence harsher than life without parole is death. Now, if execution is the just sentence and if there are cases where mercy is inappropriate, then it follows that there are cases where the only proper sentence is death … which is what my argument has been.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
You haven’t really set forth your rationale. You’ve implied some things but you’ve been somewhat short on specifics. As I said, if you’d care to state your position I’d be happy to debate it.
Ender
This is very similar to the comment Rich made and suffers the same shortcomings: it makes no specific argument but merely implies a position that would otherwise be difficult to defend.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
If you focus solely on the objective of the safety and security of the rest of us then you’re right, executing Gosnell won’t make us any safer. If, however, you focus primarily on meeting out justice for his actions - which is what we ought to focus on given that this is the primary objective of punishment - then it is not at all clear that we don’t have to execute him. His life may not be needed to secure our safety but it appears to me to be needed to satisfy the demands of justice.
His conversion would be a good thing but that in itself would not diminish the severity of the punishment which he deserves. Forgiveness does not erase the debt.
This is not what the Church teaches. She has always held that the State has the right and the duty to punish criminals and that this punishment can properly include executions.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
I don’t know why it is people insist that, while deterrence may work for other punishments, the threat of death won’t deter anyone at all. It seems irrational … but it doesn’t really matter because deterrence, while it is a valid objective of punishment, is only a secondary objective, so even if it was true that executions had no deterrent affect at all it wouldn’t mean anything. The primary objective of all punishment is justice and the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime. I don’t get into arguments about the deterrent effect of executions because whether or not they deter says nothing about whether or not they are just.
Ender
- Status