Weekend question
Are you pro-choice and anti-death penalty?
Or are you pro-life and pro-death penalty?
There are two other combinations possible. You get the idea. Please validate your position.
May.26, 2007 11:20 am |
Weekend question |
Commenting Rules
Do's
- “Criticize ideas, not people.”
- Create one original moniker and stick with it.
- Please use a unique name.
- Be civil and considerate.
- Read fully and consider carefully before responding.
Do Not's
- Blasphemy will not be tolerated.
- No swearing or slandering of others.
- No deliberate inflammatory comments.
- Do not violate another’s privacy.
- Do not threaten fellow commenters or anyone else.
- No personal, racial, ethnic or gender-based insults/slurs.
- Do not post private personal information about yourself or others.(ie addresses, phone #s)
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I’m pro-life, anti-death penalty
The only time I support the DP is if there is no other way to keep the public safe.
I sometimes feel that the death penalty is the “easy” way out. The convict that has to sit in prison for life seems to suffer far more.
I’m pro-life and pro-death penalty, both center around the sanctity of innocent humanlife. In Genesis 9:6, God States, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made He man.” To me that establishes a principle of justice that the death penalty is not about a lack of respect for human, but a profound respect for human life, because it is so serious those who kill have a penalty to pay.
I was hoping someone like Adam would come on and explain my position succinctly, so I wouldn’t have to… :)
I’m pro-life and pro-death penalty, as for the reasons Adam stated so well.
I’m pro-life and pro-death penalty.
But, what gets me is, the unborn babies who are killed, are killed in a absolute brutal (Al-qeada like) fashion. The convicted murdered is slowly put to sleep, ever so gently…..
Pro-choice and ambivalent on the death penalty.
It costs much more for the death penalty, due to appeals and whatnot, than it does to incarcerate the prisoner for a life term, and the idea of
Jill,
I stand with Adam and you based on this NT quote from Romans 13:4, “For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”
You see Jill, we have a real “choice” as to whether or not we commit a crime worthy of death.
With regards to the psuedo use of the word “choice” used to mask what pro-aborts truly are, “murderers of innocent children in the womb”, an innocent baby in the womb dies for no crime other than to be concieved.
The Pharisees accused Jesus of doing miracles by the power of Beelzebub. They were so deceived by satan they could only recognize something that was supremely good as being ultimately evil. Jesus’ retort was to warn the Pharisees that the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit was an unforgivable sin. Their hearts were in danger of being so hardened by evil to the point of being irrecoverable even by a holy God – the worst state of human existence possible.
The vice versa of this is also true which is turning something very bad into something very good. Again, satan’s fingerprints are everywhere to be seen on abortion and the movement because his pattern is to take something very bad (abortion) and turn it into something good or desirable (choice), the very definition of blasphemy. The same satanic principle can be seen in unmarried sex and homosexiality.
I like to use the definition of a late Theologian as to what the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is: “The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the sin of so often and so consistently refusing God’s will that, in the end, it cannot be recognized.”
It is my opinion that this is the road that most pro-aborts are unknowingly on and we must work tirelessly to help them see it and get off that road that leads to perdition. Do we think the prince of darkness is going to help them get off this roa? Forget it, he’s got them right where he wants them and unless they receive the Word they have no chance. Hence, I speak.
We would all do well to examine ourselves to make sure what we believe doesn’t make something very holy and sacred (life) and turn it into something very bad (death).
As Paul admonishes, “We are not ignorant of his schemes”.
Now, I expect a lot of attacks for stating this, however, let me go on record as I do not hate “pro-choicers”. And I call them that as a concession but not really agreeing that this is what they are. In fact, my speaking the truth demonstrates complete love for them. My challenge now is not to fall down in retorting back with insults as I characteristically did with Cameron.
Please Cameron, only see this as love, not hate. Perhaps you think it is misguided, however, I have learned and come to these conclusions after years of wrestling with the text and not out of a desire to hurt anyone.
My wish is that they all be saved.
Pro-choice
Anti-death penalty
There are more effective ways of punishing criminals rather than killing them. I think being killed is a cop out as opposed to spending 50+ years in prison. (Real prison, not CEO & Hollywood prison).
I’ve always believed it was odd for someone to say they are pro-life, they value ALL life, but then also praise the death penalty. Aren’t even the most hardened of criminals eligible to be redeemed of their ways while also being punished for the crimes they have already committed?
The eye for an eye law is an Old Tesyament law, put into exstence because Christ had not yet paid for our sins. At that time, before Christ, the only way to free people from their sins was with the blood of another living creature, and the shedding of human blood required human blood to pay for it. That’s partly why Christ’s blood had to be spilled, because animal sacfifices weren’t enough and human blood was tainted by sin. But then Christ came and his blood paid for all sins so that no more sacrifices and blood shed were needed. We longer need the eye for an eye deal.
By supporting the death penalty in today’s times, we are saying that Christ’s blood was not enough and the only way for a murderer to pay for his sins is with his own blood. That’s against the New Testament teachings and against what Christ himself taught. Sure, a murderer should be punished, but he longer needs to pay with his own blood. Christ all ready took care of that.
I often think about Saddam. What good came out of his death sentence? Wouldn’t it have awesome if we had given God the opportunity to turn Saddam around, much like he did Saul. Instead we didn’t give God that oppourtunity, we decided to take matters into our own hands forgetting that God works on his own time schedule, not ours.
respecting life from conception until natural death
“the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away: blessed be the name of the Lord”
Job1:21
Brenadine:
You totally misquote and misunderstand Scripture:
In the NT, Paul said this in Romans 13:4, “For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”
The purpose of capital punishment is to bring punishment on the wrongdoer, not the salvation of his soul. That’s another matter. If the wrongdoer knew he was going to die, hopefully, this would bring him to his knees in repentance, possibly the only thing that would work. Remember, God is more interested in saving our souls than our bodies.
It would be very possible that someone could be sentenced to death for murder, find Christ in prison, be executed and still go to heaven. God is not mocked. A person reaps what he sows. God forgives but He does not remove the consequences of our sin.
Besides, the blood of Christ is only applied where there is repentance and confession of Jesus Christ as Lord.
As far as Saddam Hussein, he was punished for the evil he did. I am sure God tried to reach Him, however, did you see a change of heart? God knows what He’s doing and nothing happens to any of us apart from God’s tacit approval. Saddam got exactly what he deserved unlike innocent children in the womb who are killed without a trial and with no defense, yes with God’s approval, but not without His ultimate delivery of justice on the perpetrator.
Pro-life and Pro-death penalty, kind of. I do not feel it is fairly distributed. Prior to his trial OJ was given an assurance he would not get the death penalty, even though he (may, I’m not getting into any debates on OJ) have butchered two people. Would a street thug get this kind of assurance? When I see Ted Bundy, a serial killing sociopath, sweet talking Dr.Dobson who is obviously swallowing his claptrap hook, line, and sinker, then I wholeheartedly support the death penalty. There are many examples of people being conned by these sociopaths, and escaping prison because of it. There also too many instances of these dregs being freed on parole, and contiuing to kill.
I’m more comfortable with the death penalty now that we have DNA testing. Do I have a problem with someone like Ted Bundy frying? Not at all. How many people did he kill or would he continue to kill if he escaped? There is no such thing as an escape proof prison, as has been proven time and again.
The notion of reforming these killers is wishful thinking. Sure they’ll say they’re reformed, because there are plenty of saps out there who believe them and who they will play like fiddles.
To protect society, I say there are certain criminals that must be executed. If not, they will kill at the next opportunity.
Pro-Choice
Anti-Death Penalty
No surprises there. I did recently have a conversation about the death penalty that made me think twice. My friend had heard about the Super Max Security prisons and the conditions there. 23 hours of light and solitary confinement, tiny cell, no sunshine. It would be more humane to kill someone at that point than torture them for the rest of their lives.
The justification behind the death penalty makes sense to a lot of people, but it doesn’t seem to help the problem that necessitates that kind of measure in the first place. Killing someone who has already committed a heinous crime does nothing for the young person off in another state trying to make ends meet and making a terrible mistake (deadly robbery, for instance). I think if you are really desperate or mentally ill, the death penalty will not come into your decision calculus as a deterrent, if at all.
I’m Pro-Life. When there is a choice to be made, I have always chosen life.
When it comes to the death penalty, I see no reason for it. The death penalty was probably a good idea when people didn’t have any place to put the crimminals and if you released them back into society, innocent lives were at stake. But today, I see no reason for it.
That being said, I believe our jails need to be restructured. I have no problems with “chain gangs”. The prisoners commited a crime against society, let them repay society by their physical labor. (not abuse). I think it would help more in rehabilitation. They would get a sense of pride and accomplishment. Something that many crimminals have never experienced. I like the warden in maricopa county Arizona. His jail has one of the lowest repeat offenders. Look him up. You will be amazed.
And I think the death penalty for people like Sadam or someone like Timothy McVey just raise them to a martyr type status. That can be dangerous. I also think that people like Charles Manson should be limited on his exposure to society. I think there are plenty of alternatives to the death penalty.
I do have to add something that has always confused me. When it comes to euthenasia the people who support it have no problems with how it is done. But the same method is used for the death penalty prisoners and somehow it becomes cruel and unusual punishment. If the method is good enough for Dr. Kevorkian why isn’t it good enough for the criminals?
Pro-choice / Pro-death penalty
You know why I’m pro-choice. I normally stand out against the death penalty, because I personally believe that the only reason it’s around is to set an example, and that as humans we don’t have the right to take another life in some of the more minor cases.
However, there are exceptions.
Rapists, murderers, serial killers, etc. If they get the death penalty, I hope they burn. I wish the guy that shot the woman I love in the leg and shot her boyfriend in the chest was on Death Row. I wish the guy who killed my best friend, and the people who had a hand in the deaths of my other friends could stare down the electric chair and weep because they knew what was coming. It’ll never happen, but I wish it would.
I’ll stick by my pro-choice convictions, but I can’t make up my mind about the death penalty. Blah blah blah! I hate wishy-washiness
Lauren- ditto, ditto, ditto!
To expand,
The death penalty is racist–there are a disproportionate amount of minorities to whites sentenced to the death penalty, and NO this has nothing to do with a disproportionate amount of heinous crimes. White men and women have a smaller chance of recieving the penalty regardless of crime.
The death penalty has a 10% error rate. When innocence is found in a man in prison, they can release him. When he is systematically killed by the state, they can’t do anything, except for having to live with innocent blood on their hands.
The death penalty is more expensive than life in prison and is NOT a detterent. In fact it promotes the idea of killing as a simple solution to human problems, same thing that pro-life has said about abortion.
It violates the right to life. I never remembered the memo when only innocent people had a right to life. I just remember the whole idea of everyone being worthy.
And frankly, if someone is going to say “you can’t be catholic and pro-choice” they should also say “you can’t be catholic and pro-death penalty.” Same idea, anyway. Pro-DP is not consistant with pro-life philosophy in my opinion.
Oh, and revenge is not a reason to have an institution of killing. You know, after this dumb drunk guy drove a car and killed my godsister, I wanted him dead too. It doesn’t make it right for me to kill him, or urge the state to do so for me.
And being anti-death penalty doesn’t mean happy with the judicial system or happy with the prison system. It simply means choosing life.
HisMan, 1:12p, said: “With regards to the psuedo use of the word “choice” used to mask what pro-aborts truly are, ‘murderers of innocent children in the womb’, an innocent baby in the womb dies for no crime other than to be concieved.”
HisMan, I used that term because I figured they would refuse to answer the question otherwise.
“Oh, and revenge is not a reason to have an institution of killing.”
It’s not about revenge PIP, it’s about justice for the victim who had their life taken.
“The death penalty is racist”
No, I don’t believe you. Unless you provide some data. The “racist” word gets thrown around way to easy these days…
“It violates the right to life.”
When you commit a heinous crime, you lose all kinds of rights.
“And frankly, if someone is going to say “you can’t be catholic and pro-choice” they should also say “you can’t be catholic and pro-death penalty.” Same idea, anyway.”
Please don’t compare murderers with the pure innocense of unborn babies…thats cruel
“I do have to add something that has always confused me. When it comes to euthenasia the people who support it have no problems with how it is done. But the same method is used for the death penalty prisoners and somehow it becomes cruel and unusual punishment. If the method is good enough for Dr. Kevorkian why isn’t it good enough for the criminals?”
excellent point Valerie…
JK, 1:29p, said: “I’ve always believed it was odd for someone to say they are pro-life, they value ALL life, but then also praise the death penalty. Aren’t even the most hardened of criminals eligible to be redeemed of their ways while also being punished for the crimes they have already committed?”
I’ve always believed it was odd for someone to say they are pro-abortion, they do not value ALL life, but then also oppose the death penalty. Aren’t even the most innocent among us eligible to be redeemed for doing nothing instead of being punished for the illicit sex their parents committed?
Anyone who thinks that prisoners who escape the death penalty are subjected to a life of suffering in prison is living in a dream world.
Why do convicts fight tooth and nail to avoid the death penalty if life in prison is so horrible?
Ever hear of Richard Speck? In 1966 he slaughtered 8 student nurses. Of course he claimed amnesia at his trial. He was sentenced to die but that decision was reversed on a technicality in 1971 and he was sentenced to life.
This meant he came up for parole and this meant that the parents of the victims had to attend the hearings time and again to keep him from getting freed. The strain literally killed some of them. He outlived them all.
After his death a video was released of him in prison enjoying drugs and all the sex he wanted. He somehow managed to have his breasts enlarged. He also stated that if everyone knew how he enjoyed prison, they would turn him loose. His “amnesia” had disappeared and he could suddenly recall the murders in great detail. Far from being remorseful his answer to why the student nurses were killed was “it just wasn’t their night”. How nice for the survivors of the victims to know how he “suffered” for his crimes. Thankfully he finally died of a heart attack, far more mercifully than the women he raped and sliced up did.
I’m from Chicago… know the Speck story fairly well. It’s true, he was provided female hormones and grew breasts – at taxpayer expense.
I just find it a tad bit hypocritical that you would put yourself out there as saying that all life is sacred and everyone should have the right to live and that killing under any situation is immoral, and then you exclude criminals from the ones you advocate for. Why is it ok to kill a person who is still capable of turning their life around for good? Are their lives worth less than those of the unborn, or those that have never committed a crime?
You’re going on the assumption they will turn their lives around for good. Do you think Ted Bundy or Richard Speck had such potential? I would prefer not to take the chance. Any number of criminals have been released on the assumption they would turn their lives around, only to victimize again. Remember those little girls in Florida that were killed by child sex offenders who were out roaming the streets? You know, guys who will turn their lives around? Sociopaths are master con artists and manipulators. They’ll tell you exactly what you want to hear and are masterful at portraying themselves as victims. I gave an example in an above post where Ted Bundy was conning Dr. Dobson with the story of how the pornography he saw in childhood drove him to mass murder. Puh-leeze. But he knew this was exactly what Dobson wanted to hear so out came the tears and contriteness. What was really unsettling was that Dr. Dobson was swallowing this claptrap hook, line, and sinker.
The founder of a vicious street gang was sentenced to die in California for murdering a grocer and his wife. Of course the bleeding hearts and Hollywood hobnobs came out in force. Why, this sweet fellow is writing children’s books discouraging gang involvement. What a caring and concerned citizen he has turned into. Of course this was racist too. Only problem was an African American woman went on TV saying she wanted him executed. She held him responsible for the deaths of hundreds of young black men and women, her only child included. What was this about racism? Apparently his African American victims didn’t count.
I’m obviously pro-life and I also support the death penalty.
For everyone’s information, it is perfectly OK to support the death penalty and be a Catholic in good standing. Christ did not abolish the idea of an “eye for an eye” in the sermon on the mount, he instead was concerned about the interior disposition of the person using it.
Does the use of the death penalty indicate a vengeful heart, or does it truly involve justice? He is saying that when we use the death penalty, it should not be used from a position of revenge. Other factors should determine its use.
I am pro-choice and I’m not a fan of the death penalty only because I see it as the easy way out for the criminal. Death is far too easy for them. As far as I’m concerned murderers, rapists and pedophiles ought to be locked up in a teeny-tiny cell with no windows and just a bed and a toilet and are fed just enough to not be hungry. They shouldn’t be allowed to socialize and instead sit by themselves and have no contact with the outside world.
Rae, yes watch the movie “Papillon.” That is what we should do with these prisoners.
Its not like instead of the death penalty they’ll be getting off scott free. I’m talking about life sentences in lieu of the death penalty.
Hmmm, I’ve never seen “Papillon”. I’ll have to see if that is at the video store sometime.
Anyone incredulous that pro-life can be pro-death penalty really needs to understand theories of forfeiture. It’s not that forfeiture makes the death penalty consistent with a pro-life view. It’s that forfeiture, if accepted as a viable theory, may well make the death penalty a logical conclusion of a pro-life view.
I’m pro-life in a hardcore way, but I’m not sure whether forfeiture is a cosmically necessary theory. If chosen, it seems a coherent rationale for the death penalty, however.
I don’t think advocacy for the death penalty should be at all based on how shocked a majority might be at a class of crimes come to be seen as capital. It should be based on solid theory, and it should be justly administered. Where that doesn’t happen, it should definitely be put on hold. The execution of innocents wrongly convicted has rightly come to be seen as frightfully more likely than anyone once thought.
The execution of innocents is the most horrendous imaginable thing, to me. Of course, lifelong incarceration of these same folks is also horrendous, but there’s at least an opportunity for vindication of innocence claims in such cases.
My two cents.
Some of the stories on here are not reasons for the death penalty, they are reasons for prison reform. Those sentenced to life in prison that committed heinous crimes should never be up for parole, for one. In my opinion harsher punishments should be imposed, like solitary confinment as well.
Also, I still think it’s a copout to say it’s OK if you are a Catholic. The Church is as opposed to the death penalty as they are abortion as far as I know. If you want to make it vital to Catholic membership, all Catholic political positions should be, as well. Fair’s fair.
Mary, I’m not operating on the position that these people will “turn their life around.” Some prisoners convert in prison and all that, but a lot of people in jail for heinous crimes are sociopaths who charactaristically don’t feel remorse for their actions. As much as I’d like to see some of these people thrown to wild dogs, our feelings are separate from what is right.
“It’s not about revenge PIP, it’s about justice for the victim who had their life taken.”
Why is a permanent prison sentence, probably with a solitary confinement sentence, NOT justice?
“No, I don’t believe you. Unless you provide some data. The “racist” word gets thrown around way to easy these days…”
http://www.amnestyusa.org/Fact_Sheets/The_Death_Penalty_is_Racially_Biased/page.do?id=1101091&n1=3&n2=28&n3=99
http://www.amnestyusa.org/Fact_Sheets/The_Death_Penalty_is_Arbitrary_and_Unfair/page.do?id=1101083&n1=3&n2=28&n3=99
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=539#The%20Raw%20Data
“When you commit a heinous crime, you lose all kinds of rights.”
I guess that is what we are discussing here. I was always taught that life was not only precious and a gift from God, it is a right we bestow to fellow human beings, as a recognition of dignity.
“Please don’t compare murderers with the pure innocense of unborn babies…thats cruel”
My comparison is not cruel at all. It was comparing a Catholic stance. Life. On two LIFE issues, #1 will cause your faith to be doubted by everyone else. On issue #2 it’s perfectly okay which issue you believe. I’m pointing out a double standard. If one Catholic life issue is essential to the faith then all of them are.
I am Pro-Life. I am anti Death Penalty in the U.S. and pro Death Penalty in some other parts of the world.
I am anti Death Penalty in the U.S. because I think we can secure our worst criminals away from harming others in our prison system.
However I feel some other parts of the world do not have prison systems as good as the U.S. and therefore at times will need to use the Death Penalty as the only option from keeping the worst criminals from harming others in the community/prisons.
Mike
My concern is there has never been a prison built that someone could not break out of. Alcatraz was one such prison and guess what? Someone escaped.
Several years ago in Arizona a man serving a life sentence for murder conned his sons into breaking him out of prison. Since the guards knew and trusted the sons, it was easy. The sons saw themselves as saving their father from the horrors of prison and living on the lam as an adventure. They soon realized they were trapped, and had been victims of a con job. The escapees then went on a murdering spree, including the members of a young family who stopped to help them on the road.
My point? You will always have escapees and more innocent people victimized because of it.
If death is such an easy way out why do prisoners fight to stay alive? Believe me they don’t want to die.
Concerning life sentences. I refer back to Richard Speck.
PIP- You and I will just have to agree to disagree.
For what its worth, the family that was mowed down with gunfire by these Arizona escapees consisted of a young military serviceman, his wife, their 2 year son, and 15 year old niece.
Mike, you and I have to agree to disagree as well.
Well, ours is a culture that has come to fear death. Other cultures don’t have that fear of death. The samurai considered it honorable to take thier own lives instead of being held prisoner or slave by someone else. And the fanatical Muslims see death as a reward (72 virgins) for doing the “will” of Allah. The US is ever more incarcerating people accused of terrorism, and what do these terrorists want? The death penalty. They want to be martyrs, life long incarceration would deny them that “priveledge”. Thats not to say that I believe all people on death row are terrorists; but I believe the eye for an eye mentality is archaic and not effective at all if death is what the criminal actually wants.
I do realize there are escapees, and there are people who are simply insane psychopaths that will never feel any remorse. But I don’t think that anyone who would call themselves “pro life” should put less value on one life (hardened criminal) than that of another (unborn child). Aren’t we all God’s children? Shouldn’t we leave punishment of this magnitude up to God?
I live in Ohio, and we have a prison here in Youngstown OH. called Youngstown Supermax. These prisoners are kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day. 1 hour is for showering and some exercise. Prisoners live in a 7 1/2 by 11 foot cell. There is only a sink, toilet and a very thin mattress. This is where the worst criminals are sent.
JK,
The issue is not whether I put any less value on the life of a hardened criminal, but rather how much value will this hardened criminal place on the life of the next innocent person he/she comes across?
Heather4life,
I lived and worked in a town where we also had a supermax prison, I mean the worst of the worst. These prisoners were often brought to the hospital for treatment. We knew how dangerous they were by the number of guards they had. More than a few nurses got a royal tongue lashing from guards who thought they were getting too close or friendly to convicts.
Anyway, word got out that one of our surgeons was bringing a particularly dangerous criminal to the hospital for treatment. Word also got out that people, most likely his friends, were seen on rooftops staking out the hospital, and likely plotting his escape. One of the nurses was married to a prison guard and he refused to let her come to work if this guy was hospitalized. He knew this prisoner and his friends would gun down anyone in their way.
We were all terrified to say the least, and finally the surgeon relented and didn’t admit this guy. Personally, none of us cared if this murderer died as a result.
PrettyInPink:
“It violates the right to life. I never remembered the memo when only innocent people had a right to life.”
I appreciate your comments about the hope that Catholics consistently hew to the Magisterium; the church’s teaching can’t be said to be recieved on authority if it’s received selectively. On the other hand, disagreeing with regard to the death penalty is at worst venal, and I don’t think anyone has ever claimed that disagreeing with the last Pope’s teaching on capitalism qualifies anyone for confession — which is a good thing, because the church’s teaching on economic justice finds pretty inconsistent reception among the faithful, I think.
But to your comment above, are you familiar with forfeiture? I’m not asking just here whether you agree with it, but are you familiar with it? If not, be aware that it applies to a lot more than just the death penalty. It’s everywhere — a principal knit tightly into our legal system. That’s one reason I’m amazed when people cannot see any way a pro-life view can be consistent with the death penalty. That lack of imagination assumes that a pro-life view must in some way contraindicate forfeiture — but personally I have a lack of imagination for how those two could be inconstistent with each other. ;-)
My opinion remains that the death penalty is legitimate on grounds of forfeiture; needless to say I disagree that a case could be made for abortion on forfeiture grounds. Whether the death penalty is put in play in any society would be an issue of prudence, as I see it.
The entire system is just one screwed up mess. I know guys that have been to prison. They tell me that a lot of pedophiles get very little time. Does anyone remember the case of that truck driver who picked up a 16 year old girl in need of a ride? This creep raped her, cut off her arms, and left her naked in a drainage ditch to die. He served time in San Quinton for this crime. The victim lived, and I remember that she was terrified upon his release date. He moved to Tampa, Fla. and guess what? He murdered a woman after about a year of freedom. I mean why on earth would an animal like this be released anyway? He too died of a heart attack while in a Florida prison.
JK:
“Aren’t we all God’s children? Shouldn’t we leave punishment of this magnitude up to God?”
In Romans, Paul spoke of the authority and power of the state to punish, including the power of the sword. This suggests martial power more than civil, but in the same context Paul’s teaching seems to affirm the coercive power of the state in civil, not strictly military, matters. But in either case, punishment assumes the power to kill — and Paul affirms this as a legitimate instrument of the state’s God-given mandate.
Paul doesn’t really “teach” the death penalty in this passage, of course. He merely accepts it — interestingly, as willingly as he accepts Rome itself — the Rome that eventually killed him. Paul is more interested in the church in Rome living out its faith in the circumstance in which it finds itself, than in participating as citizens in advocating for this or that cause. And it’s no wonder. They had no franchize.
It’s a bit more interesting when, in democracies, each of us in some sense is the state. We’re cast with thinking about these things because we have a say, not merely receiving the status quo and shrugging off the fact that someone else is in charge.
I’m tacking now, I’ll stop.
The Catholic Churches stance:
The new Catechism of the Catholic Church reflects this tradition, stating that the death penalty is possible in cases of extreme gravity. However, the Catechism adds: “If bloodless means [that is, other than killing] are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person” (#2267). Clearly, then, the bishops’ opposition to the death penalty is in accord with universal Church teaching.
I worry more about what it does to us as members of the human race to resort to killing other human beings than I do about the criminals being killed.
I do however believe, that when it comes to crimes of great gravity, the word parole should be expunged from our vocabulary.
Certain crimes should warrant life in prison. Period.
And as for taking them to the hospital, I think if it can’t be fixed by a doctor coming to the prison, then perhaps these rights should be forfeited.
It’s not so much about what happens to the criminals, as what does it say about us? What does it do to our souls? What does it do to the man pulling the switch or administering the injection? To the people who scream “Kill him!”
If there is no other way to keep society safe, then do what you must, but otherwise leave it to Higher Powers.
Today is Pentecost. The third holiest day in the Churches year. The birthday of the Church.
Inviting the Holy Spirit into your heart means that you will receive gifts from Him. Some will receive one gift, some two, some many and some all…
For reflection, here is a list of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirt:
WISDOM: helps you test yourself and the world for what is right and true. It is an inner voice to listen to; a shining light in the darkness of doubt.
KNOWLEDGE: is a hunger for truth; a persistent curiosity; a need to question. It is imagining and dreaming; a way of seeing the world in the light of Christ.
UNDERSTANDING: is to empathize; to “feel with” someone; to be sensitive; to forgive. When you understand, you have hope.
COURAGE: is enduring fear and failure…yours and others. It is meeting adversity head on and wearing it down with love.
PIETY: is an old fashioned word for faithfulness. It is our link to the community of believers rooted in the love of Christ. In piety we carry on the struggles and successes of all the Christians who have gone before.
COUNSEL: requires us to look beyond our self-interests; to open up to relationships with others; to allow ourselves to touch and be touched with comfort, encouragement, caring and healing. It is to nurture all life.
FEAR OF THE LORD: is the capacity to be constantly surprised by the possibilities of life; to be open to new directions; to see open windows where others see closed doors. It is WONDER – the gift that empowers all the others. It is our response to God
Just thought I’d throw that out there. Something to think about…
Andrew/Rasquel/MK, correct me if I’m wrong, b/c as you know I’m not Catholic. But my understanding of the Catholic Church’s position on the death penalty is that it has historically condoned it. Pope JPII spoke against it but never wrote it into church law. So until such time, it is not categorically wrong. Yes?
I only get a little time each day to be on the computer so I have to clump all of my posts into one.
Less,
You asked again about abstaining from sex if you are married and have no desire for children.
I think we confuse you guys sometimes.
We are against abortion and believe that laws should be passed to protect the lives of innocent human beings. Not because we are Christian, but because we are Human. Right is right and wrong is wrong no matter which religion, or lack of, you adhere to.
Abortion is a criminal offense. It is murder.
Birth control, homosexuality, premarital sex and a host of other “immoral” behaviors are not criminal acts unless they cross the line of practicing personal beliefs into forcing these beliefs on others.
I may not believe in birth control but as long as it is not also producing abortions I would not call it criminal behavior.
I may not agree with homosexuality, but unless it moves into pedophilia, and forces itself onto someone else, it is not a criminal act.
I believe that premarital and extramarital sex is an affront to human dignity but unless it crosses the line into rape, it should not be criminalized.
Abortion crosses that line. That is why we speak out against it in the courts.
If you ask me personally, as a Catholic, whether you should abstain from sex, I would say yes, because I believe it would be the best course of action given your views on pregnancy. Or better yet, work on your views and try to be more open to “new life”.
But if you ask me the same question as a secular citizen, I would say, do whatever you feel is right. God gave you free will, and all the information you need to make an informed choice.
Far be it from me to force you to accept my way of thinking. Using birth control, having sex outside of marriage…these are things that you must decide for yourself. These are things you will have to answer for in the end. But these things are between you and God. Not you and me.
But again, abortion does not fall into this category as it infringes on the rights of 45 million other human beings. We speak, because they can’t.
Does that help?
Jill,
I think the situation changed when it became possible to keep someone from harming society in ways other than death.
We now have prisons that are much more secure than they were in biblical times.
The possibility of a prisoner getting out and hurting more people is very small. (provided the laws KEEP them in prison).
Hannibal Lechter might be the exception.
But death should be the last resort. When nothing else will keep someone from harming others…
So the church isn’t “against the death penalty” as much as it calls for it to be used ONLY in the gravest of circumstances.
Does that help?
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0195.asp
This might help.
MK,
While I respect your opinions I must respectfully disagree. My brother was a police officer in a large city. We were friends with someone who did time in the big house, great friends eh?
But what they both taught me was priceless, and thanks to my friend who was in prison and what he taught us, including the tactics of criminals and convicts, I live a lot more safely.
Yes, we want to be compassionate and understanding. There are also people who will prey on this desire for their own purposes and toss your body into a ditch afterward.
Our friend told us of the con jobs pulled on unsuspecting well meaning souls who want to be compassionate and “understand”. He told how these convicts have several outside women, and men, on a string doing their bidding because these outsiders want to be compassionate and helpful. Nobody understands this poor man like I do. Convicts go through newspapers looking for newly widowed or divorced women. They look for women who have just bought homes. They know these are vulnerable women and women with money. Women they hope to prey on. A co-worker of mine was called by a convict after buying her home. Do you know what often happens to these compassionate, caring souls when these convicts get out? Some end up decomposing in ditches.
He advised that we regard these criminals as wild animals. He said they are pure predators. If you feed a steak to a wild bear in your back yard, expect the bear to tear your arm off. Expect no better from convicts.
My brother wholeheartedly supported the death penalty, as did our ex convict friend.
Please keep in mind there is no such animal as an escape proof prison. Also, what’s to stop these convicts in high security prisons from killing other prisoners or prison guards? What do they have to lose if they are already lifers?
Again, I want to make clear that the Church nowhere says that you disrupt communion with the Church if you support the death penalty. Many Catholics support the death penalty, including Catholic politicians, and they are not at risk of being excommunicated or otherwise punished.
The current campaign of the Bishops and the Pope in the United States to end the death penalty is a pastoral reponse to the problem of violent crime in our culture. It is not a matter of doctrine, or a teaching that must be held, but a matter of asking what is the best thing to do in the current culture.
The Churches approach to the death penalty has to do with what is called “retributive justice,” the idea that the punishment for the crime has to be in proportion to the crime itself. Revenge should not be a factor in whether or not capital punishment is used,(see the Sermon on the Mount) but conversely, we would say that if someone is motivated solely by revenge, then capital punishment is not the answer.
The debate hinges around whether or not retributive justice is truly being served in our current culture or, if this is not possible due to the massive disrespect for human life we find ourselves in in this culture of death. The Pope says it is not. But, he has never made it a point of doctrine, like you indicate Jill.
One more thing. John Paul II’s views on this stem from his experiences as a young man in Poland during the Nazi occupation. He saw first hand his friends being killed throught the unjust use of state power and decided he would never have anything to do with it.
For a really, really good overview of the death penalty and the Churches response to it, I recommend reading the following article written by Cardinal Avery Dulles in the April 2001 issue of First Things. Here is the link:
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2175
Heather4life,
He actually killed someone? I’m aghast. Just because he had attempted to brutally murder someone doesn’t mean he was capable of murder. Maybe if someone would have taken the time to understand him this never would have happened.
Now, no longer being sarcastic, thank you so much Heather for an example that so well proves the point I am trying so hard to get across.
As for the Catholic View of Capital Punishment, you can listed to the following on the audio archives from “Catholic Answers”…
10-10-05 A Catholic Understanding of the Death Penalty.
http://www2.catholic.com/radio/calendar.php?type=month&calendar=1&category=0&month=01&year=2006
Mike
Mary, yes. I think that there are just some people/animals out there who are beyond hope. Would anyone feel safe if The Night Stalker or the Green River Killer were set free? That’s probably a ridiculous question. I have mixed feelings about the death penalty, but I can tell you that I didn’t shed a tear when Gacy, Bundy or Dahmer passed on.
Oh, the story I posted about [the truck driver who cut off the girl’s arms] I had to research a bit, but his name was Lawrence Singleton.
Yes Mary it is good to agree to disagree.
I must stress again though, that a lot of these concerns have to deal with prison reform rather than use of the death penalty.
Let’s never give parole when the nature of a crime is murder or a similar heinous crime.
Let’s be creative and find ways to keep our prisons more secure.
I also think it would be a good idea to chemically castrate pedophiles, that is just my opinion. It greatly reduces aggressive behavior and obviously reduces libido (as these two are closely linked). That’s a different discussion though…
But this has little to do with whether we should support the use of systematic killing by the state. Again, whether I feel they deserve to be thrown to wild dogs is different than whether I think it is right.
Also, I realize that Catholic doctrine is not set, exactly, but in my opinion it is only a matter of time. So it would still be contradictory in my opinion.
And I don’t think I would support the use of death penalty in other countries, either. I’m a member of Amnesty International and find myself writing letters concerning death penalty candidates, whose only crime is speaking out against their government. Talk about limiting freedoms…
Many countries that are not developed are under laws that limit the freedom of speech. Speaking out against government (or actions contradictory to their government) would be considered a “heinous” crime and worthy of the death penalty. Others under communistic rule (China is an example) or dictatorships are subjected to similar laws. Sadly enough, it is not saved for the worst of the worst. Most of the developed countries have already banned the death penalty. So no, can’t say I would support that view.
Rasquel, I am familiar. However, I don’t believe in today’s circumstances that life is a right that can be forfeited. Freedom is. See the difference?
PIP,
While I agree with many of your suggestions, in the real world they will not happen.
No prison has ever been built that a convict cannot escape from. Yes we should keep trying, but some of these criminals are masterminds. If they want to get out they will find a way. Rememeber that Alcatraz was out in the middle of San Francisco Bay. If the current didn’t kill you the cold would. Someone escaped. Even some of the more dim-witted ones can manage to escape as well. I think the only place they haven’t escaped from is death row, though I could be wrong about that.
Ted Bundy escaped from a jail cell by losing a considerable amount of weight and sliding through a ventilation shaft and guess what he did as soon as he got out?
Again, what is to stop a lifer from killing a guard or another prisoner? He’s got nothing to fear.
Concerning castration, I have heard mixed results with that. I understand rapists began attacking victims with lethal weapons and physical beating instead of sexual assault. Sexual assault is not about sex, its about brutally assaulting a victim. Rapists just did this another way. But like you said this is another discussion.
I commend you for your work with Amnesty International and I most certainly support any effort to end injustice. But people in this country aren’t executed for speaking out against the government. Their crimes have to be pretty heinous and are.
PIP, when deranged killers agree with you that life is a right that cannot be forfeited, then I will reconsider my stand on the death penalty.
Mary,
Your points are all good. I was just saying that the damage that is done to us as a society is a great price to pay. The fact that cons can even have contact with the outside world is a problem. They couldn’t very well dupe lonely women, or do-gooders if they couldn’t get to them.
If it is truly a danger that they could reasonably escape, then capital punishment would be not only warranted, but encouraged.
I’m not concerned with the rehabilitation of the criminal. I agree whole heartedly that there are not just some, but MANY individuals so consumed by evil that the chances of a true change of heart are practically nil.
I’m more concerned about the moral danger to us…the ones that enforce the death sentence…than I am with the criminal. Does that make any sense?
MK,
By the way welcome back, you too PIP. I noticed that for some time you both didn’t post and its good to see the both of you back.
Efforts to end convicts’ outside contact have failed. Its been declared their “right” so we have to live with it. Sadly, there will always be gullible people who think they are truly doing the right thing and will be taken in by these guys. I have encountered such women and warned them. One very Christian woman told me she trusted in the Lord to protect her. I said I trust in the Lord too but I don’t take midnite strolls in dangerous neighborhoods. One very Christian couple I know wanted me to ask “my friend”, the ex-convict I mentioned in a previous post for advise. They were in contact with a prisoner, the son of a friend, sending him a bible, writing, calling, and doing what they felt was the very Christian thing to do. Still they were uncomfortable. After all, the father of the prisoner was so terrified of his son’s friends he told them his son was dead. I asked “my friend” for advise and he about blew a gasket. “End all contact, period” was his advise. They have prison chaplains and libraries with all kinds of bibles if he’s so concerned about religion. He said these cons have stacks of bibles sent by those trying to be caring. Who knows what info this prisoner is giving to his friends on the outside or in the prison for that matter, about this couple. He very sincerely feared for this couple. An example of people just trying to be kind and how easily they can be taken in, and very possibly harmed.
I understand your concern, and yes it does make sense, about moral danger to society MK but my fear is these murderers going unpunished and in a position to strike again, if not outside prison then inside. Or finding someone on the outside to do it for them, something “my friend” told us is often the case.
Mary,
I just had knee surgery…been flat on my back to two weeks.
It’s a dilemma. That’s for sure. The death penalty thing, not the knee surgery.
Again, if this is truly an issue and killing certain criminals is the ONLY way to insure that they can’t hurt anyone else, then we are left with no real choice.
I just find it sad that instead of changing the laws, we must resort to killing them. Shame on us.
mk
MK,
I’m glad your surgery was successful and you are back. Knee surgery can be pretty darned miserable.
You’re right, it is a dilemma. I’m afraid laws will never stop deranged killers, much as I wish they would. That is one reason the issue of capital punishment will never go away no matter what.
I hope that if we take nothing else away from this thread, we at least learn how easily our good intentions can set us up to be victimized by predators.
PIP Were you on a vacation or ill? I never read why you were gone for a while. Its good to see you back.
Anti-choice
Pro-Death Penalty
The left has a hard time distinguishing between the guilty and the innocent.
Pro-death penalty in principal, for the reason that Adam Graham wrote.
Pro-choice(sorry,guys, you haven’t converted me yet!), and pro-death penalty(I am a terrible liberal…)
I have too much experience with how horribly messed up our justice system is to be against the death penalty. I have a very basic eye-for-an-eye viewpoint on the world. I consider that to be justice. That, or we need a Roman system of law enforcement in this country. It would be so much more effective. (I’m also pro-corporal punishment, though, so I’ve got some intense views on law and order.)
Just in time for Memorial Day, please watch this beautiful video that was put together by Lizzie Palmer, a fifteen year old girl. It has had over 3,000,000 hits on YouTube.
At a time when our nation is almost as divided over war as it was during the Civil War, lets harken back to the beautiful old hymn, “Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. His truth is marching on.” Have a great weekend and remember why it is that we observe this special day. Fly your flag and please keep our troops, both active and those who have gone before, in your prayers.
http://www.youtube.com/v/ervaMPt4Ha0&autoplay=1
Mike
Thanks for the video Mike. Happy holiday all!
Pro-life; personally believe the death penalty is unnecessary in the states in most circumstances, while still recognizing there is legitimate debate for its use and know people of good conscience can support it.
Life is sacred. God should be the only one to determine when the end of life is for each of us. When someone commits a murder he/she will be held responsible, God will make the final judgement. God will determine where we spend eternity.
Mary,
I was in New York for a week! Check out my blog: http://www.xanga.com/prettyinpink42.
I still feel that capital punishment is another one of those things where the end doesn’t justify the means. If we have a chance to keep society safe from this guy, why should killing be necessary?
What is it about death row that these inmates won’t escape? Tighter security? More on-duty guards? Maybe we can adopt these measures for high-security prisons.
“Again, what is to stop a lifer from killing a guard or another prisoner? He’s got nothing to fear.”
The death penalty is not a deterrent. In terms of punishment, I’m sure there are (or can be) grave consecuences to his actions. Furthermore, this question is kind of redundent. What is to stop a regular person from killing another person? Gee, if the death penalty were more rampant, it would sure stop that person from committing murder.
“But people in this country aren’t executed for speaking out against the government. Their crimes have to be pretty heinous and are.”
That is true, those paragraphs were concerning the opinion that supporting death penalties outside of the US is better, when in fact the circumstances are in many cases much more politically directed.
Still, the death penalty sentence is pretty arbitrary. The second link in response to jasper’s inquiery about racially biased cases is a short article outlining how so.
And while you cite the cases of escaped prisoners, there are just as many, if not more, cases of executed prisoners later proved to be innocent. A man was released from Florida’s death row after something like 18 years there. Had he been in Texas, he would have already been dead. And while we will always be able to keep our prisons more secure, learn different ways to keep them secure, etc. we will never be able to justify or rectify the killing of those innocent people. People make mistakes or misjudgements, but when that leads to a death it complicates things. To believe that nowadays it doesn’t happen is naive; There will always be mistakes in the system as long as everything is run, argued, and decided by humans.
“PIP, when deranged killers agree with you that life is a right that cannot be forfeited, then I will reconsider my stand on the death penalty.”
I’m not quite sure I understand this. Why do deranged killers make a deciding factor for you? Especially since the statement is contradictory. In a developed country, we should not have to resort to becoming a killer to enforce justice.
New VIDEO Animates Pill = Potential Embryonic Abortion
——
We got word a few days ago about a new video
Here’s an interesting item from Drudge:
A devastating Romanian film on back-alley abortion and daily despair in the communist era Sunday won the Cannes film festival’s top award, the Palme d’Or.
“4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days” by director Cristian Mungiu was handed the coveted prize at a glittering red-carpet ceremony marking the 60th anniversary of the world’s paramount filmfest.
Pro-Choice
Support the Death Penalty.
(Big shocker, huh?)
I’m pro-choice and anti-death penalty. My reasons for being pro-choice have been stated numerous times on this blog before. My reasons for being anti-death penalty are the following:
(1) The risk of executing an innocent person is just too high for me to stomach. And given our adversarial justice system, and the racist, sexist, and classist tendencies that still infect our country, I don’t trust the justice system to get the right guy/girl all the time. I’m with Blackstone on this one “It is better that 10 guilty men escape than that one innocent suffer.”
(2) The cost of death penalty cases, when including appeals (which are needed to prevent the above and are still not fool proof) is too high. Death is not cost effective.
(3) The death penalty is not an effective deterrant.
(4) I personally think that the rules guiding what is and is not a death penalty offense are, and can only be, completely arbitrary. Why is a cop’s life worth more than a neurosurgeon’s or a waitress’s or a coal miner’s?
Various reports on this site substantiate every one of the factual claims I’ve just made. The site itself might have a bias, but if you look closely, the sources they use (and -*gasp*- they actually cite them) are not biased: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
So, basically, given that the death penalty is not cost effective and does not serve as an effective deterrent, it doesn’t seem pragmatic to use it as a means of punishment – unless you’re after vengence (an eye for an eye). But vengeful killing makes you just as bad as the convict you kill, and I really don’t see why I should have to foot the bill for your revenge killing.
Oh, and with respect to those who argue that death is the only way to prevent criminals from killing again, I must say that I was shocked to hear you say as much. Undoubtedly, given that so many of your are Christians, you must believe in free will. Right? After all, that’s how you get to heaven or hell is *freely* choosing god or rejecting him. (If you’re a Calvinist, which I doubt any of you are, this doesn’t apply to you)But if everyone has free will, then, if the death penalty is not a form of punishment for a past crime, but rather a means of “keeping us safe”, it sounds like you’re killing someone for what they *might* do. Okay. So why not lock up those who have stolen many times before to keep them from stealing? Given their history, it looks likely that they’ll steal again. Why not lock up college rapists (I’m thinking GHB using frat boys) for life to keep them from raping again? They might do it. The fact that they’ve done it once should be enough (just like one shot at killing a cop and you’re on a slab with a needle in your arm).
Can we really justify preventative imprisonment? I, for one, wouldn’t tolerate such a blatant violation of my civil rights. I’d be up in arms – literally. I’d be working to meet Jefferson’s requirement for a healthy republic, gun in hand. And yet I don’t see a difference between these suggestions and promoting the death penalty to “keep us safe” except in the severity of the crime. But the severity of the crime is not what is at issue. Note that the preventative measure I suggested is not death in the case of theft or rape, merely imprisonment. The same punishment we wield for these crimes just turned around and used as a means to prevent people who have criminal histories from hurting us. Now, if you’re just fine with that; that is, if you’re just fine with imprisoning or killing people because of what they MIGHT do, well, okay. Let me know, though, because that will be all the more incentive for me to move out of this country before crazy people turn it an Orwellian nightmare.
Pro-abortion/ anti-death penalty Diana: “:(1) The risk of executing an innocent person is just too high for me to stomach”
Really Diana? how ironic…
and it was your very first sentence above…
One position I will never comprehend is how someone can be Pro-Abortion but Anti-Death Penalty.
Anotherwords, the worst of the worst criminals should be allowed to live but innocent babies in their mothers wombs should be murdered. Come on Pro-Aborts — you all make no sense at all!
—-
Just to let you know again I am Pro-Life, Anti Death Penalty in the U.S. and Pro Death Penalty in some countries for the reasons I stated in a previous post.
Mike
Well I guess I am all around bad then.. Pro-choice and pro death penalty, LOL
Well I guess I am all around bad then.. Pro-choice and pro death penalty, LOL
Yes midnight678 I would have to agree: bad, evil, unforgiving and callous but I will keep you in my prayers.
Mike
Right is right and wrong is wrong no matter which religion, or lack of, you adhere to.
I disagree. I don
Jasper, go back into the archives on this blog and read any of the various number of arguments I’ve made to the effect that abortion is the right of a pregnant woman and then get back to me. An unwanted fetus is violating a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, so the whole “innocence” ploy isn’t going to work on me. A fetus is no more innocent to me than a mentally handicapped rapist. Neither knows what they are doing, but that doesn’t negate their violation of another’s rights, and hence the right of the other individual to end that violation.
Now, do you actually have anything substantial to say about my reasons for rejecting the death penalty, or are you going to continue to spew sound bites rather than rational arguments?
Oh, and before you use the word again, go look up ‘irony’.
Less,
Come on now, you need to put the Pro-Abortion arguments already defeated in the 70’s and 80’s behind you.
This book will answer all those ancient Pro-Abortion arguments you are raising up in the discussion. It’s called “On Message” by Mark Crutcher…
http://www.lifedynamics.com/Abortion_Information/Pro-life_Product/?id=144
Mike
And actually, Jasper, my very first sentence above was “I’m pro-choice and anti-death penalty”.
Mike, Defeated in the ’70’s and ’80’s? Dubious. I’ve never read anything that has been accepted in the bioethics community as refuting Thompson’s arguments. You’d think that would have come up in my bioethics class.
Mike, I’m comfortable in my pro-choice stance, thanks. I have no desire to read book with the subtitle “the pro-life handbook.”
An unwanted fetus is violating a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, so the whole “innocence” ploy isn’t going to work on me. A fetus is no more innocent to me than a mentally handicapped rapist. Neither knows what they are doing, but that doesn’t negate their violation of another’s rights, and hence the right of the other individual to end that violation.
Diana,
I would recommend the book to you as well as Less. When I read your comments I thought you are just being silly. We probably come from two different walks of life from this issue. I believe human sexuality has 2 variables – gratification and openess to life.
I assume you do not agree with me because you probably believe in contraception which negates the 2nd variable which is openess to life.
I have a few questions for you to ponder…
1. Do you believe in God?
2. If yes, since you are not God, would you ever question the way God created things?
3. Do you believe God created human sexuality for pure pleasure/gratification only?
4. If yes, then why did God create human sexuality (one action) with both two outcomes being gratification and openess to life?
5. Don’t you think if God wanted you only to have gratification during intercourse and not being open to life, then God would have created two different actions (one for gratification and the other separate action for openess to life)?
Mike
Mike, I’m comfortable in my pro-choice stance, thanks. I have no desire to read book with the subtitle “the pro-life handbook.”
Less, that’s fine. I just thought I would help to educate you a bit and get you caught up to 2007.
I know Pro-Aborts don’t like to look at any more information that would counter their agenda/$$$. You all want women to make well-informed choices but you refuse to give women ALL THE INFORMATION they need to make their choice at the Abortuary’s.
“Abortuary”?
Please excuse me while I go snort milk out my nose from laughing so hard.
Mike, that book is obviously biased. What information could possibly be gained from it? I prefer my proof peer reviewed, thanks.
PS: I make no money off abortions. :)
Resorting to violence is an admission that your intelligence has run out. :)
Mike,
No, I was not being silly, I was stating part of a philosophical argument. I understand that philosophy can sometimes seem silly. Test cases, analogies, etc, can often sound strange. But that doesn’t mean they’re not important. String theory is odd as hell, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t right. (I’m not saying it is – that’s certainly an open question that I’m nowhere near qualified to answer)
In response to your first question, no, I do not believe in god. I guess that makes the rest of your questions sort of irrelevant when it comes to me.
Oh, and Mike, I’m all for people having all information available to them. I will insist, however, that they have FACTS available to them and not inflammatory propaganda and misleading drivel.
As for the book, well, I do love to read, and I’m always willing to explore other sides of the debate (and always up for a good laugh). At the end of the day, though, I’m with Less. I prefer my philosophy and scientific evidence to be peer reviewed (or, in the case of philosophy, to have withstood the ivory tower test of being thought about, talked about and perhaps cited or written about in academic circles.) I’m not a total elitist, though. I understand that not all good things can break the barrier into academia. I’ll look into if it’s at the library. I’m not willing to pay 12 bucks for a pro-life propaganda pamphlet. (I wouldn’t pay that for a pro-choice one either)
Diana, 10:40p, said: “The risk of executing an innocent person is just too high for me to stomach.”
No it’s not. Your incredibly blind assertion is hard for me to stomach. I guess we’ll race each other to the bathroom.
Dr. Death threat, there are times that I get the feeling that you are thinking about assassinating someone. I’m really surprised that you push the envelope the way you do. Would 2 wrongs really make a right? I hope someone takes your threats seriously one day. You sound like a dangerous character. Are you friends with Tiller the baby Killer? It sure sounds like it to me. If not, you have a very bizarre fascination with him. You are one strange ranger.
Less,
You believe that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. That’s fine. I don’t. Why should my views be effectively forced to yours, even with legal agreement if abortion is criminalized? Why should I be forced to believe as you do?
If everybody believed as I do, there would be no need to make abortion illegal. Nobody would want one.
Making abortion a crime is necessary precisely because you don’t and never will believe as I do.
Laws are made to protect the innocent from people who do not believe that they need to be protected.
If nobody believed in rape, we wouldn’t need rape laws.
The law wouldn’t force you to believe as I do, it would force you to act according to the law.
Abortion is a criminal offense. It is murder.
Abortion is not a criminal offense, as it is not illegal; it is not murder as it is not done with malicious intent.
Well duh, wasn’t that the point of the statement. That abortion should be a criminal activity. If it already was, then Jill and the rest of us could all go home…
HI MK!!! I e-mailed you!!! Happy holiday!
Think about it. There are laws against stealing. It is never going to stop theft, but people will think twice before they do it. If theft was legal, it would happen every day, several times a day in every store! Abortion is totally abused in this country, because everyone knows it’s legal and available. Everyone knows it’s there! It should be criminal!!!
LUCASVILLE, Ohio (AP) — Death penalty opponents called on the state to halt executions after prison staff struggled to find suitable veins on a condemned man’s arm to deliver the lethal chemicals.
The execution team stuck Christopher Newton at least 10 times with needles Thursday to insert the shunts where the chemicals are injected.
He died at 11:53 a.m., nearly two hours after the scheduled start of his execution at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility. The process typically takes about 20 minutes.
“What is clear from today’s botched execution is that the state doesn’t know how to execute people without torturing them to death,” American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio attorney Carrie Davis said Thursday.
“Having one botched execution is too many; that Ohio has now had two botched executions in as many years is intolerable.”
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/05/25/ohio.execution.ap/index.html
Just thought I’d throw this out there…
I live in Ohio, so that was on my local news. Lucasville is Ohio’s death row. They just executed someone last month.
SOMG,
When you bring up the issue of Romania, and the pro-choice crowd often does, you have to consider many factors.
The country was run by a deranged dictator, Ceacescu. I believe that’s how his name was spelled.
For whatever deranged reason, he drove his country and people into economic hardship and despair. This was very deliberate. Buying such commodities as milk assuming you even could, meant a trip to the black market, and a possible prison term. People froze in the winter, lived in darkness, barely ate, and lived in desperate poverty and a continuous state of hopelessness.
During this time he decreed that every woman must bear 5 children at minimum. His draconian methods denied women access to any kind of birth control or family planning. Women were subjected to forced examinations.
Children were dumped into hellhole orphanages because parents were unable to care for or support them, not because they were unwanted. In fact, they showed the family of one such “orphan” and their living conditions were no better than the orphanage where they left their child.
Throughout history the abandonment of children during times of great hardship has been a common practice. There was also a very high rate of child abandonment during the Great Depression here in the United States.
Ironically, many of the Romanian women interviewed stated they in fact wanted more children, but were driven to the desperate act of abortion and child abandonment by their appalling living conditions, not by choice.
This would be comparable to President Roosevelt decreeing during the Great Depression that every American woman, no matter how desperate her circumstances, must bear a minimum of 5 children.
You would have seen the same situation.
By the way, are there any documentaries on forced abortion in China?
MK, did you see what Dr. Defense wrote above? Isn’t that creepy?
Mary, speaking of Romania. That is absolutely heartbreaking!
SomG aka Dr. Defense, what is your bizarre preoccupation with Paul Hill’s family? They didn’t kill the abortionist.
Everyone,
I’ve read your many opinions and argument for and against the death penalty and can conclude that this is an issue about which we can only agree to disagree. At least we all do it respectfully. Some points I would like to add:
Yes, innocent people have died because of the death penalty. DNA testing and vastly improved forensics will help minimize this likelihood in the future. I support the strictest standards for evidence and DNA testing. How many innocent people have died because a killer wasn’t put to death? I gave only a few examples in previous posts.
The death penalty is not a deterrent? How many women did Ted Bundy kill after he fried? For that matter prison isn’t a deterrent either since we still have criminals.
Escape-proof prisons? No such animal exists.
MK, I respect your concern for executions that don’t go quite as planned. What I am more concerned about is what torment the victims suffered before they died. Unlike their killers they had no choices. I had little sympathy for the killer that took a few extra minutes to fry when I read about the 3y/o girl he killed while anally raping her and shoving her face in a mud puddle. How long did it take her to die?
I stated in a previous post that I was placed in danger as a hospital employee when efforts were made to admit an extremely dangerous convict. I have no doubt that has prejudiced me a great deal. I still remember guards warning us how these guys would snap our necks if they got their hands on us, and stipping us of pens and scissors whenever we entered the room.
I hope that some examples I gave as to how people can be manipulated by these cons will be helpful to visitors to this site. Be very careful of where good intentions might take you.
Have a wonderful Memorial holiday everyone. I must spend mine spring cleaning my kitchen and it is beckoning me! Do you folks have any idea just how addicting you are!!
Mary,
I shed no tears for him either…just thought the article would add to the debate.
Two hours doesn’t seem all that awful when compared to hanging or beheading.
Didn’t really have an opinion one way or the other, just wanted to stir things up.
mk
MK,
Actually beheading and hanging were quick if done “right”. Otherwise they could be long and tortuous. Henry VIII very graciously brought the best executioner in Europe to behead his wife, Anne Boleyn, so as to make it as quick and painless as possible. And who said he wasn’t a nice guy? Have a great holiday MK. I’m still trying to get to my kitchen!!
And let’s not forget about how the abortionist does not give the unborn child a choice when it comes to his slaughter. Those low life sikening bastards!
Diana: “An unwanted fetus is violating a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, so the whole “innocence” ploy isn’t going to work on me.”
Brutal, just brutal.
“I prefer my philosophy and scientific evidence to be peer reviewed (or, in the case of philosophy, to have withstood the ivory tower test of being thought about, talked about and perhaps cited or written about in academic circles.) I’m not a total elitist, though.”
no, not much…
Anne Boleyn, lol, I am a direct descendent of her (18th generation I believe)…
Midnite,
You are royalty!
Everyone,
An eerie note concerning Ted Bundy. In the mid seventies my mother and sister were discussing the strange disappearance of a nurse my sister knew at the hospital she and I both worked at. She had disappeared while on a skiing trip with her fiance, a doctor who I knew. They were saying how she went to her room to get a magazine and they never saw her again. It was just so bizarre.
Her body was discovered in the spring thaw and it turned out she was a victim of Ted Bundy, who no one had ever heard of at that time. This incident was in a movie and book about Ted Bundy.
Mary,
I am sorry to hear about that. At least Ted Bundy got what he deserved and can never hurt another person again.
Mary, I rented the Ted Bundy movie. I couldn’t believe how long he got away with killing. Wasn’t it like 6 years? I think he escaped twice. The entire time he had a girlfriend who never suspected a thing. The movie ended with the prison guards preparing him for execution. He cried the entire time. Does it come as any surprise that the man was a great big coward?
I just looked up the Bundy murders and see which girl you are talking about. That is so sad that he didnt caught earlier to prevent her death.
Jail is not focused on rehablitation, which unfortunately, the research shows that it doesnt help “deter” them from future crimes an ways. Some of these people cant help themselves. It’s a disease which we have no cure for. I look at it kind of like a rabid dog. If a dog gets rabies, the dog is put to sleep to deter it from attacking another animal or even a human. Sentencing people like Ted Bundy to death is the ultimate deterent. They will never harm another human.
Yes, I know that innocent people have been put to death for crimes they did not commit. That is terrible and I feel for them and their families. But in todays era, it is much more unlikely that something like that will happen again. Our Forensics labs and DNA labs are always evolving and finding the “newest” “most reliable” ways of making sure an innocent person is not incarcerated for a crime they didnt commit. Even people who were sentenced under the old DNA techniques are having the DNA in their case looked at again to make sure the new technology doesnt prove them to be innocent.
But most of this is my opinion only. I will always support the death penalty when horrid crimes (i.e. Like Bundy’s or Dahmer’s) are committed.
Heather, no it does not suprise me at all that Ted cried before his execution. That is very typical of a control freak. That is why he murdered his victims and then sexually assaulted them (this is a control tactic).
From Wikkipedia:
Necrophilia, also called thanatophilia and necrolagnia, is a paraphilia characterized by a sexual attraction to corpses. The word is artificially derived from Ancient Greek:
midnite, you had said that you were going into Criminal Justice. I meant to ask you what exactly you would be doing? I find that field fascinating!!!
I forgot to add this at the end:
He wasnt crying b/c he was sorry or even remotely ashamed of what he had done. He cryed at the end b/c he had lost all the power. He had no control over his death and that scared the ever living crap out of him. What he did was typical and should not be thought of as remorse.
PS I always read True Crime books, and I love Forensic Files.
Heather:
My major is Psychology and my minor is Criminal Justice. I am going to be a Forensic Psychologist and I hope to work for the f.B.I. My dream is to be a profiler. I love forensics but my passion is pychology. I would love to be able to go to a crime scene and read the case report and profile the perp. It will be my way of trying to end a violent rampage.
A little strange, but I would love to be able to do my thesis on Charles Manson (granting he would let me interview him). I would LOVE to able to figure out how his twisted mind works.
midnite,
How interesting that you are going into criminal justice. My brother has a Master’s Degree in that and teaches at a junior college. He’s the one I said was a former police officer, and big supporter of the death penalty. He loves teaching and would do it full time if a job became available, but he’s very thankful for his parttime position, and considers it the highlight of his week. Good luck to you in your studies.
I love the true crime books, my grandfather has a huge collection that I inherited when he died. I am always watching the forensic files or fbi file, CSI, Law and Order. Since both of my parents are police officers, I’ve always been intrigued and pulled in a sense to the profession. Although I would never be a cop, they dont get paid enough for what they do and they dont the respect they deserve either (most of the time). In high school I took my first Psych class and fell in love with it. (lol, I had found my “calling” so to speak). Then I started reading books by Patricia Cornwell, the Kay Scarpetta series (if you havent read any of these books, I highly recomend them since you like forensics as much as I do). There was a character in her books that was a Profiler for the F.B.I., and I knew then that I had found the perfect job for me.
MK,
I heard of this one botched execution in which the chemicals missed his veins and spilled out into his soft tissues. He started mouthing words in agony, died a prolonged death, and they found 9 inch chemical burns all over his skin and tissues.
Mary,
Many advocates say that DNA is the answer, and while it helps, I hope that my article points out that the death penalty is still arbitrary. I’ve read several cases in Missouri and Oklahoma where the guys did not have DNA evidence, one in which was killed shortly after I read the case history. As I said as long as our judicial system is upheld by people there will be innocents murdered by the state, because people are not foolproof and as of now the sentence remains arbitrary, depending on state and circumstances. Not to mention that it’s racially biased..
No one said that there are escape-proof prisons, but as I said with better technology we can reduce the amount. Haha, I guess we can take your first argument and replace “escapes” and have the same argument.
As for deterrent…check this website out:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/Fact_Sheets/The_Death_Penalty_Is_Not_a_Deterrent/page.do?id=1101085&n1=3&n2=28&n3=99
I enjoy debating this issues because it is one that I am passionate about. But as with most debates, it must end with a “agree to disagree” mentality. Thanks for the good and civil debate!
midnite, I was just watching a video of C.Manson about 2 months ago. LOL- I can’t help it. That guy is nuttier than a Christmas Fruitcake. I think we all know that. It was a parole hearing, and the parole board let him have his say. Of course he was “all over the map” with his responses. Anyway, that is very interesting.[your career] I’d love to help solve a crime.
Mary,
Both of my parents are cops (two of my uncles are Ala state troopers). All of them are huge supporters of the death penalty. I have always supported it mainly b.c of my parents and the job they do everyday. My biggest fear growing up was that something would happen to them at work (thankfully, that never happend). Once, I got to high school and started thinking for myself and researching some of the US’ most notorious serial killers I decided that I was for the death penalty (my choice) and cant seem to figure out why people want it abolished. I guess some people will never view things as I do.
I just laugh when people say that rehablitation is the way to go with such criminals. Research has proven that it doesnt do a d@mn thing to “deter” them from future crimes. In all honesty I look at the prison system like the movie “Blow”. People (Jung) go in there knowing how to commit one kind of crime. They come out with a freaking master’s degree on how to commint another type of crime. I find our prison system ironic in that sense. (maybe it’s just me though?)
PIP~
You are right, the judicial system and the death penalty (most of the time)are racial. Although, until our tax payers are willing to pay more money for public defenders, I dont see that changing, at all. The reason why white people and rich minorities (i.e. OJ) get off, is b/c they have the money needed to get a not guilty verdict. We all know that OJ was guiltier than a prostitute, but he had the financial ability to “sway” the jury (and his book [that wont get released] “If I had Killer them” just proves what a guilty bastard he is and unfortunately double jeopardy applies to him). Until the society we live in wants to pay more money for inmates who cant afford a “top notch” legel defense, they will be stuck with they crappy public defenders (although a few get lucky and have a good defence attorney do it pro bono (sp)?). I just dont see the tax payers of America wanting to pay moey for a legal defense that isnt theirs.
Does that make any sense at all?
I call them public pretenders.
Yeah thats basically what they are. Even the good defenders (i.e. the M
OK, I am off to the pool for some much needed sun, I shall return later..
Happy Memorial day everyone!
Me too. Off to a cook out!
With regard to the idea that the risk of executing an innocent person is high, Jill said: “No it’s not. Your incredibly blind assertion is hard for me to stomach. I guess we’ll race each other to the bathroom.”
And, Jill, your unsubstantiated assertion would be hard for me to stomach, but my digestive system has been hardened to such antics since I began posting around here. I linked to a site that had information on over a hundred death row inmates released with evidence of their innocence since the ’70s. Thankfully, we were able to avoid their deaths, but how many did we miss? How many might we miss in future? Even one is too much for me. As I said, I agree with Blackstone. But apparently your “respect for life” doesn’t extend to those innocent thinking, feeling individuals with rights who might fall prey to racism, prosecutorial misconduct, public defender ineptitude, or just plain out human error. Hmm…
Or perhaps you would like to back up your assertion with evidence that police, prosecutors, public defenders, judges, and juries are all perfect and that our justice system never convicts innocent people and holds them in jail even after appeals. I won’t hold my breath.
Incidentally, even if there were no risk of executing an innocent person, I would still be against the death penalty for the (purely pragmatic) reasons I outlined above.
PIP,
While I in no way condoning the what happened to the executed man above, I could give far more horrific accounts of what victims who have been tortured, raped, mutilated, burned, dragged from behind cars, and held as sex slaves have endured.
I agree the death penalty is arbitrary, for that matter so is prison sentencing, and that is something I feel needs to be remedied. There must be strict standards applied to evidence and DNA testing.
Unfortunately the rich will always have the advantage. I don’t expect that I would have the benefit of the legal eagles Paris Hilton has to get me out of numerous traffic charges. And without millions, I wouldn’t expect to see Leslie Abramson rushing to defend me like she did the Menendez brothers, though I blame the idiot females on their juries for letting them out of the death penalty. Another example of a sociopathic con job.
Yes, innocent people have died because of the death penalty, like innocent people have died at the hands of criminals, because of drunk drivers, in car accidents, as the result of terrorist acts, the list goes on and on.
Concerning deterrents, what if anything will stop the sociopath who has no consideration or concern about the consequences of his/her actions? The ones who are so certain they will never get caught and make a game out of taunting authorities while they continue their killing sprees. Again I ask, how many women did Ted Bundy kill after he was fried?
I thank you also for an enjoyable and civil debate. We are both passionate about our positions and must simply agree to disagree.
Midnite,
What an interesting family background. You and I seem to be of the same mindset. I know how I worried about my brother so it must have been pretty unnerving for you at times to have two parents in the police force.
You are right about “rehabilitation”. There are people you will never rehabilitate. I am convinced people are born with sociopathic wiring in their brain and will not change, they will only con you into thinking they have. Since I am convinced this is genetic, it may explain why criminal behavior is seen to run in some families. Again, only my opinion.
Heather4life and Midnite,
I’m jealous!! Everyone have a great holiday and thank our veterans and servicepeople for the freedoms we all enjoy.
A former police officer told me a way to cure an opponent of the death penalty: let them pull a few mutilated bodies out of a ditch.
Oh my goodness,
I meant the last two lines of my post to be addressed in the section where I addressed Midnite. Sorry about that. I don’t know how it got there.
Jasper,
You may call it what you will, but it’s a fact. This is a discussion about rights and the law. Rights are not supposed to be touchy feely. It’s not their job to make you all warm and gooey inside. Rights and the law are not always pretty. Reality is not all puppies and rainbows. If you want to live in that magical fantasy land, well, go ahead, but don’t insist on basing decisions about the rights of *others* – who live in the real world – on your delusions.
And perhaps you’re right. Perhaps insisting that my science be peer reviewed and my philosophy be at an academically acceptable level makes me an elitist. Well, then I’m an elitist. But if that is all it takes to be an elitist, I don’t know why anyone who actually had an interest in the truth would be otherwise.
midnite, yes it does. I totally understand the situation. However, do you want that to decide who lives and who dies? When it plays with people’s lives, the bias becomes very dangerous.
Mary, agreed to disagree. Thanks again for the great debate!
Diana,
Let me ask you, what constitutional right, when exercised, should be a “sad, tragic choice”? Those are the words of Hillary Clinton when asked about her thoughts on abortion.
The scientific facts say Diana, the unborn baby’s heart starts to beat at 22 days. Or do you only believe the facts that support your position.
So, I ask you, should aborting an unborn baby at 39 weeks be legal? and if your answer is no, they why the hell not!
Thanks-
Jasper,
Hmmm… what constitutional right when exercised, is a sad, tragic choice? Let’s see… the sad, tragic choice of an individual to own a gun for protection because they live in a terrible neighborhood, or to own a gun (as our founding fathers thought they should) because we may someday need to overthrow a tyrannical government again. (Sad and tragic because it shouldn’t have to happen. But it does).
How about the sad, tragic choice of a neo-nazi to stand on a soap box and shout his filth to the world. His choice is surely sad, tragic, in fact, because it breeds more hate and ignorace. His actions are undoubtedly immoral, but it is his constitutional right.
How about the sad, tragic choice of the newpaper reporter to delve into the pain and loss of a family who has fallen into some sort of scandal? Or the sad, tragic choice of the cable media to play the whole runaway bride story over and over. Sad because they used the family’s pain for ratings and tragic because it reflects the terrible state of today’s media. But it’s exercise of the right to free press.
Or how do you feel about the KKK marching through a mainly African American town, all dressed up in their white hoods, carrying their signs and screaming bigoted nonsense? The choice of those individuals to do such a thing is tragic. It’s hateful to me and many others. But it’s their right to assembly.
Or what about the choice of Jehovah’s witness man to refuse to allow doctors to give his unconscious wife, also Jehavoh’s Witness, a blood transfusion that would save her life? His choice is surely sad. Her resulting death is surely tragic. But it’s free exercise of religion (and his rights as legal guardian in her state of unconsciousness).
Or how ’bout the choice of the judge who throws out evidence of a brutal murder on a technicality about the search warrant, thereby allowing the murderer to go free due to his exercise of his rights against unreasonable search and seizure. To the family of the victim, and to many others as well, this choice may be sad, tragic even, but it’s the defendent’s constitutional right.
Shall I go on? Once again, rights and the law are not always warm and fuzzy. Sometimes they put us in positions where we must take actions that are sad, or we must sit by and allow tragedy occur. Sometimes our rights make it such that we can do immoral things without legal sanction. Perhaps abortion is one of those cases, where the exercise of a right is not pretty, is not happy, but that doesn’t make it any less of a right. If you don’t like that, then, rather than stripping all the rest of us of free speech, free press, free assembly, free exercise of religion, the right to bear arms, rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and rights to privacy (among all the others) why don’t you move to a place where people don’t have those rights, and leave the rest of us what little freedoms we have left?
And yes, Jasper, I do believe the facts support my position. I am aware that the human heart beats at 22 days. And? How is that relevant? Where is the move from there to the idea that abortion is not a right? There is none. You have merely used a fact in an attempt to argue from emotional appeal. That’s fallacious, and while it may sway others like you who think that rights and the law are based on emotion and the mercurial whims of the masses, it won’t work on me. Try a real argument next time.
Should aborting a 39 week fetus be legal? Yes. Although I am not opposed to restrictions. At that point in pregnancy, if the woman wishes to end violation of her bodily autonomy, and there are not health concerns for the mother (hydrocephaly, etc) it would seem fair to insist that rather than abort she induce labor and give birth. The violation of her autonomy at that point can be ended without necessarily resulting in the death of the fetus, and hence should be done that way. If the fetus is not going to live, however, and birth poses a risk to the mother, then abortion should be an option. (And by the way, I don’t care if it’s ever happened before, if it’s ever medically necessary, blah, blah, blah. *In principle*, the option should be available)
Diana: “Should aborting a 39 week fetus be legal? Yes”
For you to suggest that aborting a 39 week-old unborn baby should be legal, I just find un-human, barbaric.
There’s really nothing more to say to you Diana. My morals are just so much different than yours, I don’t think we can come to any agreement.
“Emotional” : You brought this up twice, if one cannot be emotional about an unborn baby having his head sliced open and his brains sucked out, or his body ripped to bloody shreads, then frankly you can’t be emotional about anything. Your basically a robot.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/24week/01_24.jpg
And those rights you refer to up top, those are great constitutional rights which have not been manufactured by radical liberal courts, and do not sanction murder.
And, Jill, your unsubstantiated assertion would be hard for me to stomach, but my digestive system has been hardened to such antics since I began posting around here. I linked to a site that had information on over a hundred death row inmates released with evidence of their innocence since the ’70s. Thankfully, we were able to avoid their deaths, but how many did we miss? How many might we miss in future? Even one is too much for me. As I said, I agree with Blackstone. But apparently your “respect for life” doesn’t extend to those innocent thinking, feeling individuals with rights who might fall prey to racism, prosecutorial misconduct, public defender ineptitude, or just plain out human error. Hmm…
Or perhaps you would like to back up your assertion with evidence that police, prosecutors, public defenders, judges, and juries are all perfect and that our justice system never convicts innocent people and holds them in jail even after appeals. I won’t hold my breath.
Incidentally, even if there were no risk of executing an innocent person, I would still be against the death penalty for the (purely pragmatic) reasons I outlined above.
It just amazes me, Diana, that this would be so important to you, that not one innocent person in prison be executed, yet you are more than willing to allow thousands of innocent children to be executed daily, without giving them a chance to prove themselves worthy of life, or to show what they have to offer society.
I know, I know, in your world, the child somehow visciously attacked the mother’s autonomy by invading her womb, with an apparently malicious intent to hurt her and deny her of her freedoms. “An unwanted fetus is violating a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, so the whole “innocence” ploy isn’t going to work on me.”
But still, I just think it’s odd that you would value the life of prisoners so highly, wanting each case to be very carefully scrutinized so as to make sure that no innocents are killed, however would not use that same scrutiny in order to protect children, who did not even ask to be conceived, yet are here, they are human, living, and deserve a fighting chance.
But I don’t expect you to agree.
Jasper,
I never said that emotions weren’t important, or that we cannot feel emotional over the actions of others. I get very emotional about the mutilation of women in Africa for reasons of “purity” – reasons that seem vital to many here, but, thankfully, are not used in an attempt to justify the same sort of gross violation of human rights. When it comes to rational arguments about rights and the law, however, emotions should not be part of the equation. My emotional reaction to the hate filled speech of bigots or of crazy pronouncements of religious fanatics should have no bearing on whether or not they have a right to say or do what they wish. That’s all I’m saying. Use rational arguments, not emotional appeals.
Oh, and I love how you took what I said completely out of context. Note that the very next thing I said after the bit you quoted was “Although I’m not opposed to restrictions” and I then proceeded to explain why I think that insisting that the mother regain her autonomy over her body through birth could be mandatory unless there were serious risks to the woman. Perhaps you wouldn’t disagree with me to such an extent if you were actually having a conversation with me rather than the strawman you piece together by taking my statements out of context.
Bethany,
You’re correct in assuming that the difference, for me, is that the fetus, aware of it or not, is using the woman’s body. And if she does not consent to that use, then her rights over her body are being violated. That doesn’t make the fetus evil or vicious, any more than a person who, due to mental deficiency, doesn’t know any better sexually assaulting another person is evil or vicious. But the violation of rights is still there, and the woman has a right to end that violation. (And, incidentally, I’d really appreciate it if you refrained from putting words in my mouth. I never said that the fetus had malicious intent to hurt the mother, or was vicious. Rhetoric is great and all, but I’d really like it if you left your literary flourishes to your conversations with HisMan and Jill and actually discussed the issue with me without adding your own rhetorical embellishments to my claims. Thanks.)
On the other hand, an innocent prisoner on death row has not violated anyone’s rights, and is not in the process of violating anyone’s rights. I don’t value the innocent prisoner’s life any more than a guilty prisoner’s life, or a fetus’ life or your life. All three lives are of the same value. All three individuals have the same rights. Now, the guilty prisoner has foregone some of those rights. I would still disagree with his execution because it serves no proper purpose. It’s not a deterrent to other potential criminals, it’s more expensive then keeping him in prison for life, and doing it to “preserve the safety of society” is, to me, a violation of the rights of the individual, criminal or not. You can’t kill someone for what they *might* do. So unless you believe that we don’t have free will and have a way of proving beyond any doubt that an individual will commit a crime, killing them to prevent what they *might* do is a a deprivation of life without due process of law.
Oh, and Jasper, as for those rights not being “manufactured by liberal courts”, I agree. But I don’t believe that our right to bodily autonomy was manufactured by a court either. I believe it belongs to us in virtue of being human. And I believe we’ve possessed it even before courts protected people from rape, protected people’s rights over the blood that is taken from their bodies, or protected a woman’s right to obtain an abortion.
You think my right not to be raped is was “manufactured by a liberal court”. Hmmm… See I think I have that right just be being a person. You think your rights over your own organs were manufactured by a court? Hmm… okay. Well in that case, let’s get hopping to get the courts to change their mind and force blood, kidney and liver donations. Oh, wait. You don’t like that? You think you have a right over your organs and orafices? Oh. Well dang. Which court manufactured that right?
Go read the 9th Amendment. Just because a right isn’t listed in the Bill of Rights doesn’t mean we don’t have it.
correction: “…belongs to us in virtue of being persons.” Don’t want to leave higher order animals out.
Go read the 9th Amendment. Just because a right isn’t listed in the Bill of Rights doesn’t mean we don’t have it.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Great!
The “right to personal autonomy” of a woman should not be construed to deny the rights of an unborn child, who is a human, and a person, as listed under the constitution. “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal” (not BORN equal -CREATED). “That they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights,
That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
“The “right to personal autonomy” of a woman should not be construed to deny the rights of an unborn child, who is a human, and a person, as listed under the constitution.”
Cute, Bethany. But that’s not what the Amendment says. It says that the enumeration of rights in the constitution should not be taken to mean that other rights are not still possessed by the people. It says nothing about which rights trump which.
“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal” (not BORN equal -CREATED). “That they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights,
That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Diana: “We do have a right over ourselves – and that means over our bodies. What’s at issue is whether or not, when ending violation of that right results in death, one still has a right to end that violation. I say yes”
There is no violation Diana, you helped create that Life, nobody forced it upon you, you put it there. The life you created has a separate body/life besides your own, and you have no right to destroy that life.
“There is no violation Diana, you helped create that Life, nobody forced it upon you, you put it there. The life you created has a separate body/life besides your own, and you have no right to destroy that life.”
What about “rape” Jasper? A pregnancy via rape is definitely forced upon you.
Rae,
for 0.3% of abortions because of rape; It’s my belief that you still do not have a right to end a life, as that life didn’t create itself. It’s not the baby’s fault, please don’t blame him/her for the rape.
################
Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in “hard cases” are estimated as follows: in cases of rape or incest, 0.3%; in cases of risk to maternal health or life, 1%; and in cases of fetal abnormality, 0.5%. About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control
I really don’t care as to why abortions are done. I’m just saying that you were wrong in what you said that a woman should keep the baby because she put it there when there are definitely certain cases in which that is NOT the case because sometimes the baby is forced there via rape.
Jasper, what is your opinion on abortions to save the mother’s life? I’m not being snarky, I’m asking a genuine question.
Diana,
The picture you paint of bodily autonomy is right out of the “Alien” movie and it is a straw man argument. You have convinced yourself and thereby try to convince others (thereby providing a way not to face the atocity) that a baby growing in the womb is an evil to be rejected, hunted down and killed in order to preserve one’s own life, lifestyle, carrer choice, whatever. The newly concieved human becomes the enemy and all means necessary to redefine what it truly is and what our forefathers penned by the use of the word “created equal” must be twisted, redefined, mocked, blasphemed and scorned. These good men probably couldn’t even dream that such things would ever happen in the country they chartered. What a monumental and utter perversion of truth, first by one Margaret Sanger, then by organizations such as NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, the Democratic Party and 5 very perverted and misguided Supreme Court Justices.
The facts are that a baby does no such invasion. Remember that a women possesses all of her eggs at birth. It’s not that she’s inveded by some forign substance unless it’s a rape. When a woman consents to sex, any “rights” she has to her body are forfeited as such as the conception and life process is as natural as eating and breathing.
Abortion you see is a perversion of everything that is right with life. It requires immoral or irresponsible sex, a denial that the very created is a human being, which usually leads one to even denying the Creator and the fact that the baby is a gift from same.
For a seemingly intelligent person, you have bought into a demonic lie, which, in and of yourself, cannot be extricated from. Outside help is required of a divine kind to not only help you recognize the lie that is wrapped around your heart but is killing the very image of God imprinted on your soul, but alos to provide a way out. It’s a tragedy of monumental proportion and not somehthing that should be celebrated, boasted about or defended or for that matter, franchised.
None of us in the pro-life movement should be surprised. Since the first murder, Cain killing Able, who could understand the mystery of iniquity and the proponents of its actions?
I will pray for you and all who hold your views since I believe that you are no different tha Eve, who by virtue of the same sin nature and tendency, was deceived, thereby subjecting the world to falleness and depravity.
There is a story in the Bible about the rich man and Lazarus. In terms of abortion, the rich man represents all that support, have, and perform abortions, they are the power brokers. The poor man represents those in the womb, because of their circumstance, who are defenseless and innocent; they did not choose to put themselves into the circumstance but were placed there by a soverign Creator. We are told the the rich went into eternal torment and the poor man to eternal glory. So distressed and anxious was the rich man that he begged that someone be sent to warn his relatives even suggesting that they would believe the message of someone raised from the dead. The answer given was that they already had Moses and the prophets, i.e., God’s Word and those that would proclaim it.
So, those of you who support abortion, have had abortions, or perform abortions, consider this a warning from the living because no others will be sent to warn you in love. Repent from the atrocity of abortion or share the fate of the rich man.
A crucified and risen Savior is the only solution.
“I really don’t care as to why abortions are done”
of course you don’t…
“I’m just saying that you were wrong in what you said that a woman should keep the baby because she put it there when there are definitely certain cases in which that is NOT the case because sometimes the baby is forced there via rape.”
I’m not wrong, Diana was talking about rape (the reason for 0.3% of abortions)
“Jasper, what is your opinion on abortions to save the mother’s life? ”
To save the mothers life, then yes the abortion would be necessary. Have you ever heard of such a case? (now were talking about
@Jasper: I have heard of a case where abortions are done to save the mother’s life. How familiar are you with Lassa fever?
OK Rae, you got my answer on the 0.1% of abortions, now let’s talk about the 98%.
Do you believe abortion should be legal in the unborn baby’s 39th week?
@Jasper: Ah, so I see you don’t care about something that is actually quite PREVALENT in Western Africa as abortions to save women that have Lassa fever are quite common as pregnant women are more susceptible to that disease. But you know whatever…they’re just heathen Africans and all…they deserve to die and what not.
I do think it should be legal, however I would hope the woman would be more responsible and just give birth at that late in the game as aborting a fetus/baby that late in the game is just ridiculous.
Needless to say I have *never* heard of any case in which a woman chose to abort a 39 week fetus/baby just because she was sick of being pregnant because at that point, the fetus/baby could definitely live outside the womb.
I now await you to call me a heartless, murderous sinner.
“Ah, so I see you don’t care about something that is actually quite PREVALENT in Western Africa as abortions to save women that have Lassa fever are quite common as pregnant women are more susceptible to that disease. But you know whatever…they’re just heathen Africans and all…they deserve to die and what not.”
Rae, one country at a time. Please don’t put words in my mouth, how many cases of Lassa fever in the U.S. in the last 20 years? 2? 3?
Rae: “I do think it should be legal” (in the 39th week)
Ok, it should be legal in the 39th week. How about right before she was about to deliver (let’s say 2hrs before delivery) don’t she still have the right to abort? yes or no.
@Jasper: I didn’t say Lassa was in the United States…the only form it is in the US is in a vial in the CDC and USAMRIID. I am just making a point that yes, there are cases in which abortions are necessary to save the mother’s life. And just for your information, Lassa is prevalent in most of West Africa especially Sierra Leone, Nigeria and other coastal nations.
As for aborting right before birth, sure, it should be allowed, but my question is “What is the point of aborting that late?” The answer is, “There is no point and no doctor would do it.” I mean come on dude, do you *honestly* think people would be that irresponsible or lazy to abort that late?
Please, give me a case where a woman decided while she was in labor, “Well gee whiz doc, you know? I’ve been a-thinkin’ and I’ve decided I don’t want this kid after all, please, as it’s being born can you kill it so I don’t have to deal with it? I mean I’m far too lazy and selfish to consider adoption, ah-hyuck.”
I realize you are trying to make “a point” (as invalid as it is) but you could try to be more realistic.
I am still patiently waiting for the random picture of a late-term abortion from abortionno or Priests for Life followed by the complementary “SINNING COLD-HEARTED MURDERER!”
Rae,
so what’s the difference between “right before birth” and the 1st week. Why is she lazy if she aborts during the 39/birth week, but not lazy if she aborts during the 1st week?
@Jasper: Because at the first week of pregnancy, an embryo cannot live outside of the womb and is solely dependent on the mother. A 39 week fetus can live outside of the womb and somebody else can voluntarily take care of the baby after birth if the mother doesn’t want to.
It’s called “viability” son. And if doctors can make viability earlier, then fantastic.
Rae, how about if the feet and legs have come out and the head is still in? should it be legal?
“A 39 week fetus can live outside of the womb and somebody else can voluntarily take care of the baby after birth if the mother doesn’t want to.”
then why should it be legal to kill that baby?
“Rae, how about if the feet and legs have come out and the head is still in? should it be legal?”
Sure, why not. But as I said before, this is *VERY* unrealistic and would never happen…
“then why should it be legal to kill that baby?”
Because it’s the woman’s choice. I may not agree with it, you definitely don’t agree with that. However, I’ve said it a billion and a half times, that a situation like this would never happen. It’s completely unrealistic.
Jasper:”Rae, how about if the feet and legs have come out and the head is still in? should it be legal?”
Rae: “Sure, why not.”
Rae, please read HisMan’s comment upthread at 7:47. I believe you need Jesus Christ in your life. I’m praying for you. I hope you will try. May God bless you.
Thanks
@Jasper: I couldn’t care less what HisMan has to say as I’m not a Christian and I will never be Christian again. And thanks for only quoting part of what I say to make me look like a callous witch. Props go to you.
But I ask you please don’t pray for me, I find it condescending and rude.
PIP,
I know this is after the fact but I would like to address the question you posted May 27, 8:58PM concerning my statement: “When deranged killers agree with you that a life is a right that can not being forfeited then I will reconsider my stand on the death penalty”.
What I meant was that when murderers have the same respect for the lives of their potential victims that you have for theirs, then I will reconsider my stand on capital punishment.
Rae,
you’re a talented artist, It would be nice if you could draw a pregnant mother with the baby inside.
Rae,
Ignore Jasper. He likes t oask questions that are not realistic and then he manipulates your words to make you sound horrid.
Um Jasper, buddy, the one that Jill posted the woman was preggers. Are you blind man?
“The “right to personal autonomy” of a woman should not be construed to deny the rights of an unborn child, who is a human, and a person, as listed under the constitution.”
Cute, Bethany. But that’s not what the Amendment says. It says that the enumeration of rights in the constitution should not be taken to mean that other rights are not still possessed by the people. It says nothing about which rights trump which.
Exactly. Which was my point…if you can use that amendment to say it proves that it protects your rights…why can’t I also say that it proves to protect the rights of the unborn child?
And if it could protect either, we have to weigh which right is more important. Life, or convenience.
“When it comes to a choice between life and convenience, the life of a human being always should supercede the right to remain free of inconvenience.”
Perhaps. But that isn’t the conflict of rights at issue. We don’t have a right to “convenience” and no one ever said we did. We do have a right over ourselves – and that means over our bodies. What’s at issue is whether or not, when ending violation of that right results in death, one still has a right to end that violation.
I do not see it as a violation. And I would like you to explain to me how a fetus can violate someone’s rights without being able to consciously decide to do anything?
violate: transgress: act in disregard of laws, rules, contracts, or promises; “offend all laws of humanity”; “violate the basic laws or human civilization”; “break a law”; “break a promise”
How can a non-conscious being violate anyone’s rights?
I say yes. I say yes because of violinist case and because I think forced organ donation is a horrible violation of rights.
Diana, thats just silly. When the baby is born, he or she does not take any organs with him/her.
The only thing at stake is convenience. When children are born, they take away from you physically, just as they do in the womb. Do you not think this is true? Just spend a day with me, and I can show you how it works. My body can physically be exhausted from a day of taking care of kids, on certain days, and especially when more than 1 is a toddler.
But, if you don’t mind, I will reword your statement such that the two rights really at issue are balanced in it. (Please forgive me, and correct me, if this skews your true position):
When it comes to a choice between life and control over one’s own body, the life of a human being always should supercede the right to remain free of violations of one’s right over one’s body.
No, because I do not consider a baby living in the comfort of it’s mother’s womb to be a violation to anyone.
Now, you don’t really believe that, do you? ‘Cause that sure sounds like my right over my bone marrow should be violated to preserve the life of the leukemia patient who I match with. Their life always supercedes my right (and yours and Jill’s and Less’s and…) over my own body. Same goes for my blood, kidney, my lung, and pieces of my liver.
This analogy would perhaps work if fetuses and embryos took the organs out of your body at birth.
You guys were talking about abortions being performed at 39 weeks. I believe George Tiller the baby killer will do them at that time.
An unwanted fetus is violating a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, so the whole “innocence” ploy isn’t going to work on me. A fetus is no more innocent to me than a mentally handicapped rapist. Neither knows what they are doing, but that doesn’t negate their violation of another’s rights, and hence the right of the other individual to end that violation.
We’ve already been through this. A mentally handicapped rapist, though ignorant and possibly unaware of the ramifications of his actions, still makes a CHOICE to rape, in every single situation.
A fetus NEVER EVER makes a choice to enter the womb.
Rae, look at the stats Alan Guttmacher has for why women abort late term. Also, note how far down fetal deformity is listed as a reason for late term abortions.
In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows:[3]
* 71% Woman didn’t recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
* 48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
* 33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
* 24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
* 8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
* 8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
* 6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
* 6% Woman didn’t know timing is important
* 5% Woman didn’t know she could get an abortion
* 2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
* 11% Other
Midnite, Rae,
I’m talking about a nice drawing, not a mean, angry one….
That entire body autonomy thing is laughable. I had never even heard of such a thing until I came to this site. Even my girlfriends who’ve aborted say ” I was careless, so I had an abortion.” I don’t even think they have heard of the “body autonomy” stuff. They admit that they screwed up, but I’ve never heard ANY of them talk about a “fetal invasion.”
I don’t know if the topic is still on the weekend question or not … I was rather busy this weekend. Coincidentally, however, I was thinking about this whole death-penalty thing at one point … so I was sort of surprised to read this question.
I am pro-choice. Most of you here know this. I’ve already given my reasons.
I am anti-death panalty. This one I feel needs some justification, because I haven’t already discussed it to death here.
Interestingly, we’ve been studying this in my French lit class, citing arguments from Voltaire and Victor Hugo (who were both anti-death penatly) (the death penalty is illegal in France, by the way, since the 1980s, and it is not even a question of argument anymore).
Voltaire’s arguments are really more suited for his time, but I think you may find Hugo’s quite interesting. At least, I did.
He says that to punish is not the job of society or of men. Punishment is up to God. Men want to put people to death out of vengeance.
God punishes. Men seek revenge.
What society must do it correct. Leave the punishment up to God. While the criminal is still here on earth, it is our job (not individually–as a whole) to correct this person; to teach them that what they did is wrong. Killing them is not doing that.
Also, I feel that this citation from the Bible is appropriate. I usually don’t use religious citations because I don’t believe religion has place in politics (separation of church and state, you know …), but considering that many people here accept religious arguments, I thought I’d throw out this Bible quote, which is one of my favorites, and something I like to try to live by:
“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” (John 8:7)
Jesus, I think, was a very smart man.
I am pro-life and pro-death penalty. I do not believe that an innocent baby deserves to be murdered for any reason, but I do believe that an adult who has committed a crime heinous enough to be sentenced to death is more than deserving of it. A baby is innocent & as a society, we have blood on our hands if we continue allowing them to be murdered. Anyone who is on death row put themselves there through his or her own actions & deserves the punishment due. A baby does not choose to be conceived and to liken a baby to rapist is just stupid. As a society, we do not punish rapists with the death penalty, so why is it okay to murder their innocent children???
“What society must do it correct. Leave the punishment up to God.”
wow Leah, you have alot of gall.
Leah,
One cannot pick & choose which parts of the bible they are going to live by.
Leah:
“I feel that this citation from the Bible is appropriate”
Which one did you have in mind?
As for the quote from Jesus, it’s a wonderful piece of cherry-picking but even ignoring that, do you think a paraphrase could just as well be “let the police officer without sin make the first arrest?”
You’re welcome to live in such a society, but it’s not the one Paul envisioned when he penned Romans 13.
This will probably never be read and be buried in other posts, but … whatever …
Jasper: First of all, that was Victor Hugo that said that, not me. Second … do I really? How?
Teri: On the contrary, yes one can. Most people do, in fact, because many Biblical laws are outdated, and rational Christians recognize that. I like to think that God left room for amendments. Surely if the founding fathers of the United States could think of doing such, God did as well.
Rasqual: The citation from the Bible was “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
It’s amazing how when people use the Bible to support one of *your* opinions, those who argue against it are committing blasphemy and are disrespecting the name of God and whatnot, yet when I use a Bible passage–a very, very wise one–to argue *my* point … it’s cherry-picking.
You know what, whatever. I seriously can’t be bothered by this.
Love, love, love.
Leah, I think you’re over-reacting. It *is* cherry-picking if you quote Jesus on this point but not others. This “wise” man you cite taught about hell more than any other scriptural figure. Care to cite all that as well? I mean, if you’re citing Jesus as an authority, continue by all means to cite him.
That’s the cherry-picking thing.
But I think you know you’re on the spot, because you’re not defending what you seem to be suggesting as a consistently applicable ethic — that is, something that can survive a categorical imperative.
Do you in fact believe the paraphrase would be workable, “let the policeman who is without sin make the first arrest?”
I can see why you’re avoiding answering. It makes nonsense of your cherry-picking.
Don’t you see that the problem isn’t me calling you on it, it’s that trying to argue ethics this way doesn’t get YOU anywhere?
You’re welcome to prove me wrong by addressing the policeman extension of your ethic.
When folks quote Jesus selectively as if he were their favorite authority, I’m reminded of the script from “O Brother Where Art Thou”:
DELMAR
How’d he know about the treasure?
EVERETT
Don’t know, Delmar – though the blind
are reputed to possess sensitivities
compensatin’ for their lack of sight,
even to the point of developing
para-normal psychic powers. Now clearly,
seein’ the future would fall neatly into
that ka-taggery. It’s not so surprising,
then, if an organism deprived of earthly
vision –
PETE
He said we wouldn’t get it! He said we
wouldn’t get the treasure we seek!
EVERETT
Well what does he know – he’s an ignorant
old man!
;-)
Do you in fact believe the paraphrase would be workable, “let the policeman who is without sin make the first arrest?”
Just thought I
Less, the transfusion/pregnancy scenerios are different because one is the result of a natural process and the other the result of a failure of a natural process.
It’s a bit like comparing caring for a 6 year old and a 36 year old. The 36 year old may have just lost his wife and his house, but you still aren’t legally obligated to give him shelter. The 6 year old on the other hand is recognized as one whom you must legally shelter.
Leah,
Just because our modern, worldly society passes a law does not mean that it is Biblically correct. As far as the Bible being outdated, no true Christian would ever make such a statement. Society has evolved into a cesspool where there is no morality and no accountability for oneself.
I believe that abortion subjugates women to men in a way that was never meant to be. By killing our own children, we are saying that its okay for them to do whatever they want to us sexually because we will never hold them accountable for their actions.
Less, why does being without sin make a difference for the right to life, but not other rights? An arrest, by definition, is an abridgement of rights. I can’t imagine why the question of how dire the consequences may be would have a bearing on whether being without sin should qualify a person as a judge of whether someone should be deprived of their rights.
Or is the right to life so terribly important?
;-)
Why does being without sin make a difference for the right to life, but not other rights?
Other rights can generally be given back: life, not so much. Life oughtn’t be taken away without a particularly good reason. As I previously stated, I’m unsure of my own opinion on the death penalty, so I’m not sure that criminal activity is a particularly good reason.
Still, it seems to me that Jesus isnt’ concerned with whether this woman’s rights can be abridged only by someone who’s holy. If he was really concerning himself with instruction in the administration of justice just here, needless to say he’d have picked up stones himself — at least on the canonical teaching that Jesus was certainly without sin.
It seems to me that his remark was more instrumental than normative, inasmuch as he absolved the Roman soldier who was involved in his crucifixion — but placed heavier culpability on the Jewish leadership (even heavier than on Pilate, on whose authority his execution was carried out).
It’s difficult to argue about statements like this when everyone takes them as some normative principle, but what remains in question is just what principle is to be normative. Taken at face value in situations, Jesus’ remarks are often best understood as bearing more existential import — for the moment. In general, if there was some important principle Jesus was teaching, it would be emphasized in the later didactic epistles of the apostles.
As it turns out, Paul — someone whose life was turned upside down by a personal revelation of Jesus — accepted the power of death as a legitimate instrument of even the Roman empire — the same empire that had used that power to crucify his Lord and, eventually and by his leave, Paul himself.
The Christian view of how people should treat each other in everyday life and how the state operates in a somewhat different capacity, is more nuanced than simplistic mercenary use of scriptures would have it.
Less:
“Why should a mother be forced to donate her uterus?”
Why should an unborn child find itself treated like a parasite by someone who, after all, created it?
Diana’s example of the blood transfusion would be fine, were it not for the fact that the person doing the transfusing is the one who put the other person getting the transfusion into the bed next to them.
The child did not create the situation. It seems to me that once someone has put someone else in such a position of dependence on them, it’s ridiculous to point fingers at the product of their own volitional action and claim the culpability of the helpless party who lacks a choice of any kind in the matter, but is wholly dependent on the choices of the person responsibile for the situation in the first place.
Notice how darned WELL that quickly-rattled-off rant comports with notions of holding men responsible for the children they sire.
A consistent ethic has to account not only for responsible behavior by women toward the unborn AND toward the men who sired the unborn, but also by the men who sired these children and are in part responsible for the woman being in this state in the first place.
There’s a huge duh factor here.
Why should an unborn child find itself treated like a parasite by someone who, after all, created it?
par
For the record, I’m not saying that any of the males on here are particularly akin to rapists; that’d be horrid. That was just an expression of rueful frustration and general weariness. :)
Leah:
The verse you sighted concluded with, “Go and sin no more”.
God forgives sin, but is not mediator of its profession and perfomance.
God is not mocked by that oft misquoted verse by those who especially want to excuse sinful behavior and relish in the free and unrestrained continuance of same.
The Bible is full of verses that warn of the practice of sin, i.e., Hebrews, Chapter 10. read it and then come back and put the “cast the first stone” verse in context please.
Less:
When I tell my kids to clean their rooms, they sometimes come to me early on in the job and ask for advice on what to do with this, or that, or the other thing. I tell them to go back and first accomplish everything they have no questions about, and then we’ll look at all the exceptional oddities together.
The same thing applies with abortion or any other ethical or public policy issue. Throwing up rape and such as if they should be the determinants of how a philosophy of life and rights should unfold is ridiculous. However, you’ve gone one step further and attempted to make most pregnancies that would end in abortion, I suspect, of a kind. If it’s “unintentional,” it’s on a level with a rape. In this case, not a rape by the man (whose attentions were welcome), but by the unborn child (who’s a loathed intruder).
Policy should accommodate exceptional circumstances, but guiding principles should begin with basic cases. The alternative — your ruse — is anti-life a priori. Or makes a valiant effort to be.
As for the unintentionality of pregnancy —
most injuries people suffer are unintentional. So are diseases they acquire. And yet I’m expected to pay taxes to assist those who cannot afford health care; hospitals are required to care for them in emergencies and even many disease treatments end up socialized. We consider it a grave social injustice when basic health care is not available to people who cannot afford it.
And yet I’m really not morally responsible for these parasites. Or am I?
Back to the unborn child, however, it’s not clear to me how the unintentionality of my having created it makes me any less responsible for it. A woman who bears a child to birth is frequently able to hold the father accountable in court for support. But why should he be responsible if the pregnancy was unintentional on his part? Couldn’t any man escape responsibility by claiming that? The lopsided social scenario of men being able to claim no responsibility would present a strong bias in favor of abortion to women who might otherwise choose life, indicating that men are capable of controlling a woman’s choices far more, on your logic, than any argument that respects the unborn as a creation for which both are responsible — intention or not.
At work (as at home), I’m responsible for my actions. However unintentional my acts, I’m held accountable for the fallout. However, my acts at work do not generally result in the creation of human beings. There’s more than intentionality at stake here. It’s begging the question to imagine that unintentionality trumps life.
Back to the unborn child, however, it’s not clear to me how the unintentionality of my having created it makes me any less responsible for it. A woman who bears a child to birth is frequently able to hold the father accountable in court for support. But why should he be responsible if the pregnancy was unintentional on his part? Couldn’t any man escape responsibility by claiming that? The lopsided social scenario of men being able to claim no responsibility would present a strong bias in favor of abortion to women who might otherwise choose life, indicating that men are capable of controlling a woman’s choices far more, on your logic, than any argument that respects the unborn as a creation for which both are responsible — intention or not.
Great point, Rasqual. Someone sent me a comic the other day. It had a man on one side, and a woman on the other. Above the man it said, “This man got a woman pregnant, and decided not to be a father”. Underneath him it said, “This man is selfish and inhuman, a deadbeat dad.”
Above the woman it says, “This woman got pregnant and decided not to be a mother”,
Below her it says, “She’s pro-choice.”
Less, we’ve been over the beneficial attributes of pregnancy in the pregnant student post.
Of course, that assumes that we do not consider the survival of the species to be of benefit. No scientist believes that human offspring are parasites. They have a mutally benefitial symbiotic relationship to thier mother.
way to go rasqual! How true it is. “They will either not respond or they will come up with some lame excuse.
But why should he be responsible if the pregnancy was unintentional on his part? Couldn’t any man escape responsibility by claiming that?
I think it should be made far easier for a man to sign off all parental rights: if a woman chooses to keep the child, which is fine, and the man does not want to be involved, he too should have that choice. It
Less, your personal feelings about pregnancy do not change the physical nature of pregnancy.
I can hate eating, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is beneficial to me.
I’m not denying there are benefits, but there are detrements. And those benefits do not outweight the fact that those detrements can damage careers, educations, and relationships.
Less, your attitude and response towards pregnancy and children might potentially be damaging to careers, education, and your relationship…but the children themselves are not what is damaging to these things.
If you take the pregnancy to term and have the child, the child isn’t going to be damaging, you are correct. Most couples I’ve talked to, particularly those who go to premarital counseling, have already discussed how they will deal with having children. I’ve not heard of very many who, when/if pregnancy does happen, are completely at a loss.
My attitude towards pregnancy is based upon the fact that I do not want to be pregnant ever. I don’t see why this is particularly damaging. Pregnancy and the side affects thereof can damage your career choices and educational opportunities: why does pointing this out suddenly becoming a battle about the fact that I don’t want to become pregnant?
Less:
“the fact that those detrements can damage careers, educations, and relationships”
Another way of putting it would be that someone’s career, education, and relationships got in the way of life for the unborn. It’s a matter of perspective, I guess. It’d be a shame if no one at all spoke for those who can’t, inasmuch as those who can are very loudly screeching of their prerogatives. :-/
“I think it should be made far easier for a man to sign off all parental rights: if a woman chooses to keep the child, which is fine, and the man does not want to be involved, he too should have that choice. It
My attitude towards pregnancy is based upon the fact that I do not want to be pregnant ever. I don’t see why this is particularly damaging. Pregnancy and the side affects thereof can damage your career choices and educational opportunities: why does pointing this out suddenly becoming a battle about the fact that I don’t want to become pregnant?
Oh good grief, Less. Every time we call you on that statement, you go back into your “well I might want to be pregnant one day, so I’d like my birth control measures to be reversable”.
Which is it? Do you want the ability to become pregnant or not?
The only thing we have a problem with when it comes to you disliking pregnancy is that you are willing to pre-plan your baby’s demise, before he or she is even conceived. Instead of taking real measures to make sure the conception never happens. You know very well that even with every other measure you take, that conception could occur. And you have already planned that in this case you would abort.
Why is it so difficult to take REAL measures to prevent if you are so certain that you are not under any circumstances, ever going to want to have a child in the future?
You say you’re going to adopt instead of carry a child yourself….so where is the problem in getting tubes tied? You got a root canal done recently…can’t you get tubes tied, when it is such a simple procedure nowadays? I just don’t get it.
I
Less:
Um . . . so a woman’s “choice” is based on logic of the fetus being a parasite, but the woman applying for tax-funded assistance is somehow OK? She can kill the unborn on account of it being a parasite, then turn around and be one herself?
Please.
This is insane.
“I don
Good thing that I know how to responsibly use birth control, eh rasqual?
There’s nothing parasitic about asking for assistance from the government: aren’t we called to help our fellow men and women in their times of need. Aren’t you, as a Christian, responsible for helping the poor and needy?
34″Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37″Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40″The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
Less:
“Good thing that I know how to responsibly use birth control, eh rasqual?”
Beats thinking it’s responsible to kill unborn life, that’s for sure.
Among other things, PLEASE take a clue: the Bible is not a guide for politics or governance. Please read Romans 13 before piously spouting nonsense as if you’re dropping some bombshell into my lap. Paul was speaking of the Rome that crucified his Lord in this chapter. Note that his letter was to the Roman Christians and was utterly apolitical.
It’s certainly true that Christian teaching legitimately informs beliefs about what public policy should look like, but please don’t start condescendingly think Christians are obliged to just flatly apply scriptures to life in ways your naive approach imagines we are. You really, really don’t understand what you’re talking about.
Among other things, you’re confusing acts of compassion with entitlements. Jesus wasn’t teaching about rights of people to expect handouts from the dole (however justified such safety nets may be); he was teaching about the obligations of people.
In your mind, the obligation of the unborn child is to die so the mother can enjoy whatever entitlements she wants? Please. That’s perverse.
So Christians, then, have no particular obligation to feed the hungry and clothe the poor? You aren
Where on EARTH do you draw the inference opening that immaterial rant, from what I just posted?
the Bible is not a guide for politics or governance
Bad parsing on your part, then:
“Jesus wasn’t teaching about rights of people to expect handouts from the dole (however justified such safety nets may be); he was teaching about the obligations of people.”
From that you infer:
“So Christians, then, have no particular obligation to feed the hungry and clothe the poor?”
But aside from that, I don’t think you were originally talking about “Christians” — you were at least alluding to the government’s role, I believe. Or am I mistaken about that?
Originally, I was speaking of the government’s role: the quote was in response to the virulent way in which you characterized those who seek government assistance. Doesn’t seem particularly compassionate to me to refer to them as parasites, now does it?
When running a reductio ad absurdum, Less, the point is to be logical. Attributing the premises of the reductio to the one offering it betrays a significant ignorance of polemics — which is OK, but the point just here is that they, like the unborn, are dependent. Missing the point and engaging in ad hominem are a good match for your refusal to answer a few issues in prior weeks, however.
reductio ad absurdum
If I did employ that particular tactic, point it out.
You
Less. *I* was doing a reductio. You were attributing the premises I was testing to me, which is non sequitur.
Never mind, seriously. Get some sleep. I know the feeling.