Stanek weekend question: Should Gosnell get the death penalty?
Judge Renee Cardwell Hughes warned infamous infanticide abortionist Kermit Gosnell in court this week he faces the death penalty for killing one adult and 7 newborn babies in his abortion mill.
By now most are aware Gosnell and his thugs tortured and killed likely hundreds of babies by delivering them alive and then slitting their necks, suctioning their brains, and “snipping” their spinal cords, often joking along the way.
Do you think Gosnell should be put to death for his crimes?
Feb.05, 2011 12:29 pm |
Weekend question |
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.
It doesn’t make sense for us to be pro-life and hope this man gets the death penalty. Yes, what he did was totally appalling. He should be made an example of and receive 8 life sentences. Us, as pro-lifers should pray he comes to realize the horrible thing he has done and that he crosses over to our side of the fight.
Dawn-Marie .. I agree. Hopefully he spends the rest of his life with remorse for all of the heinous murders he committed. I believe punishment to him will be living in jail … and he better pray for better treatment while incarcerated than he showed to any of those poor, innocent babies!
Nope. First, his money should be seized and donated to an adoption agency. Second, his cross should be life behind bars with no chance of parol and a pauper’s buriel. Maybe that will be proof that the relentless pursuit of the almighty dollar doesn’t serve one’s own self. I will continue to pray that he receives a repentant heart. I am looking forward to the great things God will make from this evil. Perhaps we’re seeing fruits coming forth already with Congressional measures being taken to defund PP.
Yes he deserves life sentence and this case should be the turning point to change the abortion law. This is the real face of abortion in this country other abortionists do the same thing with clean instruments and in politically correct ways…
I think an isolation cell with Scott Roeder would be good.
It may not make sense Dawn Marie but many prolifers believe in the death penalty while many do not. That is the reality.
I am praying that he repents and that justice is done.
I completely agree with Dawn-Marie.
It would be, in my opinion, highly immoral behavior to kill a man who we can still give a chance for repentance. It would also be hypocritical of us as pro-life advocates. If allowing him to live were threatening to our society and lives, I could see a justification for the death penalty, but we have the uniquely good fortune to be able to lock him up for the rest of his life without it being a threat to our safety. I am joining Carla in her prayers for his repentance and for justice.
Deserves life in prison with not even a single inkling of a chance at parole. His money should go to the families of the women he killed or like someone mentioned above, an adoption agency. The building he uses should be torn down or, like in the town I live in, converted to a crisis pregnancy center.
It doesn’t make sense for us to be pro-life and hope this man gets the death penalty.
Amen! I deplore this man’s actions, but he is not beyond the mercy of God unless he chooses to be. He needs prayer not hatred.
No death penalty. Life in prison with no chance of parole. No frills. Praying for his conversion of heart and mind.
I agree – no death penalty. Pray for his repentance and conversion of his heart and mind. And maybe he could pen a book to help all the families he has hurt and publicly call of an end to abortion.
This man was seriously led astray and caused untolled harm. He needs time to reflect, repent and repair the damage, as he can under the circumstances.
Lord have mercy.
I do not wish death upon anyone. I’ve watched as crowds have cheered after the executions of serial killers, and I was mortified. Rejoicing over the death of another possibly unrepentant soul is, to me, atrocious and barbaric.
This man needs to go to prison for the rest of his life.
Without going into details (mostly ’cause it takes a while), it’s not inconsistent to feel that there is a material difference between a state execution of a guilty person and a personal execution of an innocent one. Whatever conclusion you might come to about the death penalty, at the very least, it’s obviously a matter that must be considered differently and separately from abortion.
In any case, this may all be moot. The prosecutors are discussing the death penalty as a possibility, but it’s not decided yet. I’m kind of hoping they decide against it. That seems simpler, even if it might be a cop-out, legally.
I’m a little more worried that, at the moment, Gosnell doesn’t have a lawyer. I know he can elect to represent himself, but even if he is guilty as sin, he should really have a decent lawyer. Due process and all that.
He doesn’t meet my standard criteria for the death penalty, which is that executing the person is the only way to protect others from him because he would continue to be a danger. (Escape risk, able to arrange murder-for-hire from behind bars, a violent threat to prison workers and other inmates.) Gosnell doesn’t seem like an escape risk, I doubt that he has the connections or the will to order hits from behind bars, and since he’d be incarcerated with other men he’d be unable to resume his abortion trade. So life behind bars does the job.
There’s also the fact that society has, unfortunately, been letting other abortionists brazenly get away with murdering live-born infants. Thus, executing Gosnell for something we rarely even prosecute others for would be unjust, since Gosnell could have had no clue that he was risking execution should he get caught.
So that’s two grounds for not frying the guy.
Alice,
There is no reason why we cannot give Gosnell a chance at repentance, though. He is no danger behind bars.
I never agree with the death penalty. How can we be Pro-life but for the death penalty? what good comes from killing this man? He needs life in prison to get his soul right with God. God is the giver and taker of life. We are all guilty of sin. His sin is no greater than ours. He needs time to reconcile with God. “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7).
Let him sit in prison for life with a bible where we can all pray for his conversion and repentance. Maybe he will write a prolife book soon and add another cup of water to our prolife bucket.
(Our bucket is getting fuller and fuller everyday and we’re getting to the tipping point!)
Being pro-life, I am opposed to the death penalty. But if i were in favor of it…
The answer would still be a resounding no. To support the death penalty for Gosnell and not all abortionists is to make the very distinction the pro-aborts make with babies of different developmental stages. I honestly see no difference between tearing them apart limb-by-limb in utero and what Gosnell did. They both experience excruciating agony.
The geographic locale of the baby being murdered is of little consideration. So is the developmental stage. There is great danger in this question, that we get seduced into making the pro-abort’s argument without realizing that we are doing so.
Murder is murder, no matter how clean and antiseptic, or how filthy and grubby the technique.
I think he should be made to work in a pathology lab reassembling the broken bodies of abortion victims while his chains rattle.
He should be sentenced to sharing a cell with Jared Loughner. Watch the movie “Zeitgeist” forever.
He absolutely should NOT get the death penalty. He should get life in prison without parole, and we should ALL be praying for his conversion. What a TESTIMONY he would have that could save thousands of lives!!
Why is this question posed for casual discussion? No one here is a member of the Gosnell jury, I suspect. Therefore, what business do we have speculating on a man’s life or death, or making this a topic of idle chit-chat? Or is this a Roman colluseum, where we put our thumbs up or down?
Megan,
For dialogue purposes let me use an analogy of two abortionists; Bernard Nathanson and Kermit Gosnell for this example. Nathanson admits he killed thousand of babies all the while unaware of their humanity and personhood. It was the advent of ultrasound technology that opened his eyes to the wrong he was doing and he stopped once he realized the personhood of the unborn.
Now look at Gosnell. He killed just born babies knowing that they are complete persons in every sense of the word. His willing participation in action he knew to be wrongful is a part of what will bring judgement upon Gosnell. God will provide eternal judgement upon those who grieve the Holy Spirit and their names will not be spoken or even remerbered in heaven.
1) No sin is greater than the redemptive power of God.
2) We are all sinners in need of God’s redemptive grace.
3) Some sins cause more grief to the Holy Spirit than others.
“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” Mt 12:31-32
Gosnell’s willingness to murder babies even though he had knowledge of their humanity is more likely considered blasphemy against the Holy Spirit then Nathanson’s willingness to murder babies up until he had knowledge of their humanity. See the difference in these sins?
Hi Megan @ 1:54pm
There is another Megan here that has posted for awhile. Could you maybe change your moniker a bit to avoid confusion?
Thanks. :)
I think Gosnell did believe he was doing nothing wrong. The abortionists are remarkably clueless.
Joe, You may not want to believe it but people like Gossner do it just for the money. So did that late term half-abortionist James Pendegrast. So does Planned Barrenhood. The entire abortion industry is in it for the money.
I will be honest. There is part of me that wants to see Gosnell face the death penalty. I saw his handiwork on the backs of the necks of those precious babies and I want him to pay with his life for ALL of the atrocities he committed against innocent babies and women! I want to blame someone. My righteous anger gets the best of me.
BUT I know that God is in control and He will see that justice is done. I will turn to Him and ask that Gosnell be locked up for life. I pray that Gosnell will not be able to get the images out of his head of those babies and that in his desperation he cries out to God for mercy and forgiveness.
From a purely practical perspective, this guy is old enough that by the time he exhausts all his possible appeals and delays, he’ll probably be close to dying a natural death anyway. From a religious perspective, I think he shouldn’t get the death penalty because he should be allowed as much time on earth as God wants to give him to hopefully repent for what he did. From a political perspective, if Gosnell gets the death penalty, I suspect he’ll become a Tilleresque martyr-figure among at least some pro-choicers, if not necessarily the more mainstream ones. From a how-best-to-punish-him perspective, I think it would be hell to wake up in prison every day for the rest of your life and know that you’re there because you thought you could get away with breaking the law, and it turned out that guess what! You couldn’t.
I think that of course they do it for the money. We all work for the money.
However, as misguided as it may be, many abortionists actually believe they are doing good in the world and helping mothers out by offering them a “choice”, no matter how frightful that “choice” may be.
The whole prenatal homicide movement is that way. We realize they are supporting and committing terrible crimes against helpless and innocent human children. They honestly believe they are just “terminating fetuses” (not babies) and are helping women have better lives. Absurd, I know, but it is what they believe.
I consider myself anti-abortion since I do believe in the death penatly for those who are guilty of henious crimes. I do respect the opinions of those of you who are pro-life and want to see this man live to redeem himself.
How about a compromise:
Gosnell gets to live his life out in prison, but everyday be inflicted with the same pain and agony those poor innicent babies suffered in his hands.
I do believe that he should get the death penalty. This may sound somewhat extreme, but personally, I believe in a life for a life. You murder someone, you die. However, I do hope he will realize the error of his ways and come to Jesus. If he doesn’t get the death penalty, he should get life in prison without parole.
I agree with Christina.
I say life in prison (as a prolifer), after I get over some of my anger I do plan to pray for this man for him to repent and receive Jesus Christ as Lord. I am having a hardtime as a healthcare worker getting over my anger because we are supposed to be healers, protectors of life and first “do no harm” not be wanton murderers, severing baby’s spinal cords and then joking about it. This whole fiasco is so sick I still want to puke. Do you realize if I had ever had a subordinate unlicensed person administer medication for me I would have lost my license and been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (rightly so). I can remember waiting for babies to take their first breath holding my own breath because I was waiting to hear the most beautiful sound you could ever hear the first cry, the first breath, the cries of the mother as she reached out to bring her baby to her breast, to slaughter a baby inside or outside of the womb is a very sick, perverted evil act. God help this man, his criminal co-horts, the people in authority who knew about his crimes and the entire nation.
Legally, yes.
I don’t agree with the death penalty, but given the fact it is out there, I would think this case should qualify.
I have to say, I am pleased and impressed with the responses to this question. A pro-choice person visiting this page would probably be very surprised that all but two posters do NOT think he should get the death penalty for his heinous crimes. It illustrates beautifully how we as a movement in general respect the dignity of life, at all stages and in all circumstances. Even when the person living that life does not deserve our respect. I LOVE pro-lifers!
And I agree, life without the possibility of parole. I like the idea of sharing a cell with Scott Roeder! :)
I’m pleasantly surprised to see that most people here do not support the death penalty (at least in this case). I myself categorically oppose it on moral, ethical, and practical grounds, and so my answer should be obvious. A civilized, modern society only debases itself and its legal culture by resorting to acts of institutionalized killing as punishment.
So Joanie is opposed to killing criminal murderers but is not opposed to killing innocent children. Figures.
I am pro-life and also have no problem with the death penalty for the most part. It is an issue I see merit to both arguments so I haven’t solidified my position though I lean more pro death penalty. There is a difference between executing a GUILTY person who is a danger to INNOCENT people in the community and killing an innocent growing child in his mommy’s womb. So all you who want to act like you are APPALLED that anyone who is pro-life could consider the death penalty okay, cease drinking the kool-aid and stop being so naive. Abortion is not the same as the death penalty. I am against killing INNOCENT DEFENSELESS people. I am pro-life but believe me would have no problem shooting someone who crawls into my home at night to kill my child and rape me etc… does that make me not pro-life? No. Human life is so precious that if you take an innocent one what other payment can the law require but your own life? Thats how I see it. You may disagree but thats how a lot of pro-lifers see it.
And if you want to quote the Bible remember God said “Whosoever sheddeth innocent blood by man shall his blood be shed.”
Sydney,
I do agree with you that the death penalty is definately not the same as killing innocent babies, however, that alone doesn’t justify it. It is my belief that pro-lifers should be against all forms of death inflected to people by their fellow human beings, weather it be abortion, euthanasia or the death penalty.
The death penalty is wrong because it is unnecessary killing. Only killing as a last resort before the fact against someone who is a direct and immediate threat to the life of another human being is morally defensible.
“However, as misguided as it may be, many abortionists actually believe they are doing good in the world and helping mothers out by offering them a “choice”, no matter how frightful that “choice” may be”
Not today Joe. Today there is irrefutable evidence (ultrasound imaging) as to the humanity and personhood of the unborn. Theydo no more good than a hired killer of any other innocent for the benefit of the person who hires the killer to kill any “burden” they may have in their life. They would just as easily kill any enemy if they could get paid and get away with it. Some put on an altruistic face but don’t be deceived.
“I myself categorically oppose it on moral, ethical, and practical grounds, and so my answer should be obvious. A civilized, modern society only debases itself and its legal culture by resorting to acts of institutionalized killing as punishment.”
Wow, Joan. It’s like you’re trying to be as hypocritical and contradictory as possible. A civilized society doesn’t dismember babies in the womb, either. A civilized society doesn’t inject babies’ hearts with feticidal drugs, either. A civilized society resort to killing its own children because it deems them “unplanned” or inconvenient. You have moral objections to killing someone who has committed grievous crimes, but no moral objection to killing the most innocent. Incredible…
Sydney M.,
I am aware that there are many pro-lifers who are pro-death penalty and I am not appalled at that, although I don’t believe in the death penalty myself. A MAJOR problem is that courts can mistakenly convict and innocent lives are taken. While Gosnell’s crimes are heinous, his guilt does not require the death penalty because he is not a threat to society once he is in jail. I believe he deserves a chance to repent – his eternal life is in the balance. I can certainly understand how this is a very difficult position to have.
For those of you who draw a parallel between abortion and the death penalty: When you show me an armed, aggressive fetus who’s committed murder, I’ll discuss the parallels between abortion and capital punishment.
Stanek weekend question: Should Gosnell get the death penalty?
Yes, but only if a jury finds him guilty and they and/or the judge sentence him to death.
If Kermit ‘the Fraud’ Gosnell is found guilty and sentenced to death I will donate two cents to purchase the .22LR cartridge and I will volunteer to administer the ‘coup de grâce’: a hypersonic injection of lead into his deluded and reprobate mind.
I will do it up close enough to see the white of his lyin eyes, which I where I will line up the ‘targeting icon’, rotated 45 degrees so that it appears to be an ‘X‘, as in ‘X‘ marks the spot, not to be confused with the ‘+‘ (plus) sign, which some artificial flowers indignantly and falsely claim is taken as command to wackos everywhere to commence firing.
I reiterate, I will donate the .22LR cartridge and volunteer to punch Gosnell’s one way ticket to his eternal destination if, and only if, a jury of his fellow citizens finds him guilty of murder and they and/or the judge sentence him to death.
I realize Gosnell’s death will not resurect any of his victims to life, but I am confident that his death will guarantee he will not kill again.
[Disclaimer: My conclusion is mine and I do not purport to represent anyone but myself. I am cognizent that some ‘pro-lifers’ find any killing of a fellow human being to be repugnant and as a matter of conscience are opposed to ‘capital punishment’. I respect your conscience. I only ask that you extend to me and my concscience the same respect.
If death by the hypersonic injection of lead is too violent, then I recommend a millstone be tied around Gosnell’s neck and he be thrown into the nearest body of water. If the punishment passes muster with the LORD of heaven and earth, then who am I to pass judgement on Jesus.]
“For those of you who draw a parallel between abortion and the death penalty: When you show me an armed, aggressive fetus who’s committed murder, I’ll discuss the parallels between abortion and capital punishment.”
Chritina, right on..
This would make a good QoTD!
Ken,
While we differ on this one (a first), I do respect your conscience.
God Bless.
Equalmente hermano Gerardo.
No one is served by Gosnell’s execution.
The Culture of Death believes that killing is a suitable option for solving many problems. They expect us to scream for his blood.
We do not believe in killing. It solves nothing. We don’t kill the practicing abortionists, and we don’t desire the execution of Gosnell.
We hope for repentence and salvation. Let Gosnell have a chance to preach Pro-Life from his prison cell.
joan says: February 5, 2011 at 5:22 pm
“I’m pleasantly surprised to see that most people here do not support the death penalty (at least in this case). I myself categorically oppose it on moral, ethical, and practical grounds, and so my answer should be obvious. A civilized, modern society only debases itself and its legal culture by resorting to acts of institutionalized killing as punishment.”
=============================================================
Joan,
When your momma was pregnant with you what species of embryo/fetus was present in her uterus?
Go look at your reflection in the mirror and keep repeating to yourself: I am not human, I am not human, I am not human, I am not human.
No matter how many times you say it or how deeply you believe it to be true, it does not change the reality of who and what you are.
No matter how many times you say pre-natal children are NOT human, it will not change who and what they are. It only changes you. In essence, you only dehumanize your self by degrees and the evidence is the things you are willing to do to others once you have deceived and deluded yourself you are right.
Del says: February 5, 2011 at 9:02 pm
“We hope for repentence and salvation. Let Gosnell have a chance to preach Pro-Life from his prison cell.”
====================================================
[on death row while he is awaiting his execution date.]
In the several intervening years that should give him ample time to share his gospel and make a few disciples.
Wow! Joan you are totally fine with abortionists violently dialating, mutilating, dismembering, suctioning and killing innocent, human pre-born babies because you are “pro-choice” but the vilest murderer deserves to be spared his or her life because “on moral, ethical and practical grounds” you are against the death penalty. Wow!
By opposing the death penalty you only barter one life for another. Either capital offense criminals will be put to death or an innocent person will take their place (either by the same criminals hands or learned criminal behavior through the leniency of the system.) Locking people up in jail like an animal is deplorable, inhumane, unjust, and not even close to Christian thinking on the issue. It is sad that so many good people are confused. The ONLY moral and righteous punishment under this circumstance is the death penalty.
To degrade the death penalty is to disgrace God; for God the Father submitted His son to the death penalty. If it is morally wrong, then God is morally wrong. Shame on those of you who think you are being Christian-like and moral for opposing the death penalty. I guess some folks are just better people than God was/is.
To degrade the death penalty is to disgrace God; for God the Father submitted His son to the death penalty. If it is morally wrong, then God is morally wrong. Shame on those of you who think you are being Christian-like and moral for opposing the death penalty. I guess some folks are just better people than God was/is.
Sorry, IndyCAD, but that has got to be the most ridiculous argument for the death penalty I’ve ever heard. Do you really think the point of the cruxifixion lay in the fact that Jesus was subjected to capital puishment? If so that was very unjust and cruel of God because His Son was innocent of any crime! Should we subject innocent people to the death penalty too, because God supposedly did so?
The reason for the crucifixion has nothing to do with the legalities of the death penalty in human law. it happened because God the Son, His will always wholly united to the Father’s, chose to suffer death not for his own guilt, but for that of sinners, as his Father willed. God wanted to make sure that the human race did not have to suffer the eternal death penalty. If you want to suport the death penalty you need to find a better analogy.
If there are bloodless means available to protect anymore human beings (fetuses, infants, and women inclusive) from being killed by Gosnell, great.
If, as is often the case, he would ever be eligible for parole, I say the death penalty is better.
The bigger question is what do with abortionists once abortion is made illegal again.
Lori Pieper, I agree, if that analogy was intended to defend the death penalty that would have been a really stupid approach. However, that’s not the case. The second paragraph was referring to the morality of the death penalty and specifically a short response to those who oppose it on moral grounds-and that makes what I wrote entirely appropriate. If the death penalty is immoral in any way, that makes God immoral.
We must first acknowledge that the death penalty was conceived, organized, commanded, exemplified, and reaffirmed all by God in both the old and new testaments, before we can judge its usefulness in man’s affairs.
Wow, I’m pleasantly surprise at all the opposition to the death penalty. Is it just a Catholic thing? One wonders.
But if he does get the death penalty, it’s his own fault. Should have thought of that when he snapped the babies’ necks. Just because I want to preserve life doesn’t mean I have a whole lot of sympathy for those who lose it through abominable behaviour.
IndyCAD, you entirely missed your own point as well as mine. If you intended to argue that arguments for the morality of the death penalty are rooted in God, then you chose the worst possible words in which to do it.
If you have an argument to make showing that the morality of the death penalty as carried out by the State was conceived and commanded by God, then make it, and show the scriptural evidence. I am not denying the morality of the death penalty (at least in principle), by the way, just the ineptness of your argument.
Simply to state without any preamble that God applied the death penalty to his Son — as if God bringing about the death of His innocent Son exactly the same as the State executing a guilty criminal — then you can hardly expect anyone to find that a good argument; it’s just too great a leap in logic.
Jill, Gosnell would probably like the Path lab…… he liked collecting the little feet too, right?
Truthseeker wins the creative prize for the idea of locking him up with Scott Roeder.
The hypersonic injection of Lead idea from yor bro ken is too easy for the guy.
Lock Gosnell up, throw away the key, slide pizza under the door. He can live alone with himself.
IndyCAD:
“To degrade the death penalty is to disgrace God; for God the Father submitted His son to the death penalty. If it is morally wrong, then God is morally wrong. Shame on those of you who think you are being Christian-like and moral for opposing the death penalty. I guess some folks are just better people than God was/is.”
You must be talking about the same God who said in Matthew 5:
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
And no doubt you reference the same God who consistent with His NEW Covenant told the crowd about to enact His system of capital punishment,
“Let the one among you who is without sin cast the first stone.”
When the crowd dropped the rocks and petered away, Jesus asked the woman if no one was left to condemn her. When she answered, “No one, sir.” Jesus replied,
“Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.”
Also, the Father did not submit His Son to the death penalty. He asked Him in love to be a once and for all sacrifice for sin, to heal the separation that we created and which we were powerless to heal. It is a sacrifice that Jesus made in willing obedience to the Father. That men carried out that death under Roman ‘justice’ is merely a superficial means by which the sacrifice was enacted.
You can not suggest a legitimate enactment of the death penalty in the case of Jesus, as He was blameless. If anything, the death penalty for Jesus under Roman rule was the ultimate example of the flaw in such a system overseen by men:
An innocent man was put to death.
As DNA evidence is illustrating with frightening regularity, a great many innocent men are condemned to death.
Perhaps Jesus actually knew what He was doing when He gave us a new command.
That’s great, Gerarld!
IndyCAD, I hope that I didn’t seem too testy in correcting you; unfortunately all too many hostile non-Christians read this site and they are just lying in wait for something that will enable them to say, “See the Christian God is cruel and vindictive!” You have (inadvertently, I know) made Him out to be just that. I just desperately wanted to deflect the wrong impression that was bound to arise from your words. Please restae your argument and I’m sure you’ll get a hearing.
As for Mr. Gosnell: life without parole. Solitary confinement. No pizza. A Bible.
Is this cruel and inhuman punishment? Suffering is a very good way to redemption. If you execute a man, you don’t necessarily get that. Let’s hope whatever punishment they choose may lead to his salvation.
Just as a deliberate provocation directed at our pro-abort friends here at Casa de Stanek, assuming Gosnell does get sentenced to death for his acts of infanticide (again, I oppose this), I do have one question:
Would the sentence be just and proportionate if Gosnell were executed in the same manner that he executed the babies? That is to say that his neck is cut open (no anesthetic) and a pair of shears is placed around his spinal column with the column then crushed until the shears are able to sever the spinal cord.
Any takers? Explain why not, if this seems barbaric.
Whoa………. no pizza. That’s rough! ;-)
Do you guys ever sleep?
Joe,
Depends if you’re up all night with a sick child.
If the death penalty is immoral in any way, that makes God immoral.
Humans are not God. I don’t believe I have a right to decide whether Gosnell lives or dies. Really, what did our country expect would happen after Roe? Killing preborn humans day after day was bound to have negative effects on already confused individuals as well as society as a whole. I remember as a child, the Catholic Church predicting these types of things would result after Roe.
Maybe God has big plans for Gosnell or maybe God will strike Gosnell down. Who am I to argue? For that matter, if God strikes me down, who am I to argue? I can only pray that He give me enough time on this earth to get as close to Him as I possibly can.
God owes me nothing. I owe Him everything. The only reason I am here in the first place is because of HIS LOVE.
I would however vote for no pizza for at least 20 years.
The moral reasoning here to get around God’s clear commandments to do capital punishment for the crime of murder is staggering. Why do so many of you think you are wiser than God? What do you understand that He missed?
This isn’t about us playing God with somebody’s life. This is about us as a society obeying God. “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” See Genesis 9. I saw a rainbow the other day, so I’m pretty sure that covenant that God made with all creation is still in effect.
For those who don’t like the Old Testament, we could look at the words of Paul in Romans 13 where he says the civil magistrate does not bear the sword in vain. In other words, human government is supposed to punish evil–even with capital punishment in some cases.
A lot of you in criticizing God’s ordinance of capital punishment, referenced God or Scripture. Please hear His word on the subject.
But for those who reject the Bible, I cannot appeal to the authority of God, so I will appeal to common sense. Justice is fair. Justice means the punishment matches the crime. So justice demands that thieves repay what they have taken, and justice demands that when life is intentionally taken, the penalty is the life of the one who took it.
Let’s stop groping in the dark for moral clarity apart from the light of the Author of morality. He has spoken clearly. Let’s do what he said, and execute this murderer.
A reed he will not break, nor will he quench a smoldering wick..
‘No death’ cancels and supercedes any call for death. Jesus healed, absolved, and sacrificed. He did not kill sinners. I agree that we should obey and respect civil laws, but if we clamored for Kermit’s death, we’d only be proving ourselves to be hypocrites. The poor choicers would love that.
Wesley,
You’re straining New Testament gnats with that quote from Paul. Care to comment on the words of Jesus that I put up?
What part of NEW Covenant is beyond you? Sure Gosnel merits death. But there are none so fast-tracked for hell than the first to show up with rope in hand. It has something to do with pride, which has something to do with denial of one’s own sinfulness.
The closer one draws near to the Lord in the spiritual life, the more the light of the Lord illuminates one’s sinful proclivities, ad the faster one starts dropping those stones. I do agree with you that God has spoken clearly. Especially when He said,
“For the measure that you show others will be the measure that is shown you.”
…and this little gem,
“Blessed are the merciful, for mercy shall be theirs.”
Then of course, there is the parable of the unforgiving servant. But you console yourself with Paul’s sword of the magistrate. Good luck on Judgement Day.
Just a reminder- Gerard Nadal’s name is Gerard. G E R A R D. :)
If we were to sever Gosnell’s spinal cord in the manner that he used on born alive babies it would be considered barbaric. hmmm
Anyway, I do appreciate those of you who are against the death penalty. I shall remember this thread. It might come in handy.
Hope you and your child feel better Dr. Nadal!
I guess we must ask what is the purpose of the death penalty?
Part of it is punishment for the crime. Another part is deterrence.
For most of my life I’ve been against the death penalty mainly because we now have a safe place to house very evil criminals away from society. And also because there is also the possibility that even the most hardened criminals may repent and save their soul.
However, because there have been a number of truly heinous crimes over my lifetime I am now leaning towards the death penalty for those people we know for certain killed in an especially vicious manner. In particular if there is videotaped evidence.
So I guess would the death penalty in this case be a deterrence to other doctors to NOT kill born babies in this manner and in fact have staff who are present and will treat the baby with the intention of saving him/her?
Personally in this case I have no qualms about the death penalty being issued but I’m betting it would start a firestorm from those supporting abortion rights.
And I would answer NO to Dr. Nadal’s question. Gosnell’s barbaric treatment doesn’t mean we should behave barbarically too.
sorry my statement should really mean “NOT to kill born babies”
it’s sounds like I’m in favor if the abortionist kills them in a more humane manner. urghhh
Angel said:
“Personally in this case I have no qualms about the death penalty being issued but I’m betting it would start a firestorm from those ‘supporting’ abortion ‘rights’.”
First, please NEVER, NEVER, I really mean NEVER use the abortionists’ doublespeak. Please do not help them with the violence they are doing both to logic and to the English language. Instead of saying, “abortion rights”, say “abortion crime” or “prenatal homicide”. Using their doublespeak only advances their evil cause.
Second, if you support (or anyone does) the death penalty for his killing BORN children, would you support the death penalty for a criminal abortionist killing UNBORN children?
Third, it would be preposterous (although expected) for supporters of the crime of prenatal homicide to say “no” to the death penalty for child killers, while supporting the death penalty for the children themselves.
I would love to ask opponents of unborn human rights this question: if you would not let Gosnell be killed now, why would you have let the very same human being be killed earlier in his life, in the unborn stage?
Joe, the right to abortion IS what proaborts favor. As a long time prolifer supporter I KNOW that abortion rights is a euphemism for killing unborn children.
Generally I don’t support the death penalty at all except in extreme cases where there has been torture and rape of women and children.
That being said Joe, do you believe that the death penalty for abortionists would be a deterrent?
It would of course be a deterrent. It would be a deterrent against anything. I do not favor it in any instance.
Funny because studies show it isn’t.
My mind is undecided at this point. Where I live there is no death penalty. Part of the problem is that the sentences for terrible crimes are very low (no life sentences are possible). It is this injustice that is fuelling my feeling that unless the sentences are stricter something needs to change.
Perhaps Gosnell should receive life and be placed in isolation.
Gerard Nadal says: February 6, 2011 at 1:49 am
Here are some verses that preceded the ones you referenced.
Matt 5:21-22 ” You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER’ and
‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’
22 “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court;
and whoever says to his brother, ‘ You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court;
and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. NASU
I suppose some theologian could give us some insight as to the distinction between ‘the court’ and ‘the supreme court’ that might round out our understanding but it would seem to me that being sentenced not only to death, but to a never ending death, is much more severe than being imprisoned for life or even being executed.
We could parse passages of scripture til Jesus returns, but I believe it would be better to agree that ones position on capital punishment is a matter of conscience.
I remember a pastor sharing one time how he overheard his two children discussing the story of Noah and the flood and one of the children commented that desrtoying the whole earth with a flood did not seem too loving.
The other child said he agreed but that was before GOD became a ‘christian’.
Folks GOD is not a ‘christian’ but HE is the GOD of the christians.
Though Jesus was born into a Jewish family I am not sure HE would quailfy genetically as a Jew, but there is no doubt HE was a human.
Some people are so adamantly opposed to imbibing alcohol that they think less of Jesus because he not only drank wine, but he turned water into wine and provided it to other people to drink.
If you doubt that Jesus drank fermented wine then I suggest you go share Passover with a Jewish family and see what kind of wine they drink. Ask them if they are aware of any Jewish people who have have ever celebrated with any other kind of wine than fermented wine, when fermented wine was available.
But some peoples conscience will not allow then to drink fermented wine and the apostle Paul wrote that we should respect one anothers conscience.
This discussion is healthy. There are many facets to GOD’s truth and HIS wisdom is manifold.
Just don’t take it personally when your sacred cow gets gored in the process. And do not forget Jesus’ admonition:
22 “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court;
and whoever says to his brother, ‘ You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court;
and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. NASU
No death penalty. Gosnell committed ”crimes against humanity”,as at Nuremberg. Nuremberg’s conclusion: “The purpose of medicine is the healing of the patient, not the advance of medicine.” Hippocratic Oath says doctors are bound to the Golden Rule, and should receive punishment they meted out to their patients, essentially”eye for eye,death for death.” Nuremberg carried out Hippocratic Oath’s demands, in other words.
Perfect justice will never be meted out in man’s courts. Only God can judge the heart, and vengeance is God’s obligation, not man’s. Law penalties should reflect the highest human moral good: MERCY. If we fail to show mercy, how can we expect mercy? We fall into the pit with the vipers, and achieve nothing except more death.
Excellence in all aspects of life should be a GOAL, and “goodness” will be the RESULT of striving for excellence. Striving for “goodness” will usually fail: man’s fallen nature will bring “good” down to evil, eventually (secularism, which SEEMS good, but it cannot find a way to prevent tyranny). The road to hell is paved with GOOD intentions. “There exists a way that seemeth right before a man, but the ends thereof are the ways of death.”
Gosnell was taking Roe to it’s “logical” next step, he being either unaware or unrecognizant of Golden Rule, Hippocratic Oath, or limitations of laws in place (partial birth abortion ban). Even now, it seems that he thinks the courts will vindicate him, which may not be impossible.
Roe was a bold attempt to secularize medicine. Roe is shot through with moral relativist terms, an encroachment on medicine’s purposes; it is secularism personified, and will and has already, infected the separation of powers, and is killing the entire structure of our political system that protects us from tyranny.
Gosnell is a microcosm of a secular state. State should put entire secular worldview on trial with Gosnell trial. The only way to make good come out of this horror show. ACT now, pro life leaders! This is an opportunity to END ROE, reestablish Hippocratic Oath for doctors, and readjust the judicial system, returning separation of powers.
Remember NINEVEH !! This is OUR Nineveh Moment !! National Repentance !
“If my people, who are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray……”
God help us all if we miss this opportunity !!
“And a little child shall lead them….”
joan says:
February 5, 2011 at 5:22 pm
I’m pleasantly surprised to see that most people here do not support the death penalty (at least in this case). I myself categorically oppose it on moral, ethical, and practical grounds, and so my answer should be obvious. A civilized, modern society only debases itself and its legal culture by resorting to acts of institutionalized killing as punishment.
I had to read this a few times, as I couldn’t believe the amount of common sense in Joan’s comment and surprisingly – I couldn’t agree more!!!! On every single point of this comment! Though I must add the EXACTLY the same arguments are perfectly valid in abortion argument! I don’t know how Joan didn’t notice that!
Jennifer says:
February 5, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Wow, Joan. It’s like you’re trying to be as hypocritical and contradictory as possible. A civilized society doesn’t dismember babies in the womb, either. A civilized society doesn’t inject babies’ hearts with feticidal drugs, either. A civilized society resort to killing its own children because it deems them “unplanned” or inconvenient. You have moral objections to killing someone who has committed grievous crimes, but no moral objection to killing the most innocent. Incredible…
EXACTLY!!!!! What moral gymnastics one has to perform to arrive at the conclusion that purposeful killing of dangerous and hardened criminals is wrong, but dismembering and other gruesome ways of killing innocent human beings in the womb is ok???
“EXACTLY!!!!! What moral gymnastics one has to perform to arrive at the conclusion that purposeful killing of dangerous and hardened criminals is wrong, but dismembering and other gruesome ways of killing innocent human beings in the womb is ok???”
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that we’ve reached the consensus that abortion is immoral, and constitutes the taking of a life. You must at least recognize the logical distinction between the government passively allowing an immoral act (legalizing abortion) and actively engaging in it (capital punishment). The comparison between abortion and the death penalty would only be sound if they were both being performed by employees of the government acting in their official capacity, or other individuals who have been commissioned by the government to carry it out. Additionally, because the death penalty is being discharged by the government rather than by individual citizens in their private capacity, there is no possibility that it’s a constitutional right in the way that abortion access is.
Regarding capital punishment, the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
I realize many that visit and comment here at Jill’s are not Catholic and it is interesting to learn what other religious and non-religious believe about the death penalty. What do other religion’s documents state about capital punishment?
joan, by giving the biggest abortion provider the amount of money it does, our government is actively engaging in abortion.
Pro ALL life, Jesus says revenge is mine.
“joan, by giving the biggest abortion provider the amount of money it does, our government is actively engaging in abortion.”
The distinction I pointed out is not restricted or only applicable to the United States. It’s relevant to any jurisdiction where the death penalty exists and abortion is legal.
And the amount of federal money that Planned Parenthood receives each year is a pittance in the broader scheme of both government and private funding. Additionally, PP provides many more services than just abortion (many Planned Parenthoods don’t even perform abortions), and it is those services (such as free or inexpensive birth control), not abortion itself, that are less profitable and would not be offered without federal subsidization.
Joan,
It is the federal government and several of the state governments who decriminalized elective abortion/pre-natal homicide and changed the definition of both ‘person’ and ‘human being’ to exclude the pre-natal child from the protection of the law.
Then contrary to exisiting federal law, the federal government funded oraganizations who counsled, provided and perfomed elective abortion as method of ‘family planning, and turned the law on it’s head and denied funding for any oraganization which did NOT include ‘elective abortion’ as a method of family planning.
Then our federal government took the RICO statutes which were created to combat ‘organized crime’ think the mafia and the cosa nostra and used them to suppress passive non-volent dissent against elecitive abortion.
Federal judges issued state wide injunctions prohibiting citizens from peacefully assembling to prevent elective abortion from taking place.
At the same lefist loons were destroying private property, bocking federal interstate highways thereby preventing emergency vehicles from getting sick and dying people to the hospital which resulted in increased suffering and even death.
The same governments ‘sang a little louder and looked the other way’.
Peaceful non-violent citizens were physically and judicially abused by local and state law enforcement. [Picture Sherrif Bull Connor sicking his dogs on the civil rights protestors in the 60’s.]
The government at all levels in the United States has been used to protect and expand the humanist assaut on pre-natal children and on others humans who are unable to protect themselves and voice their objection.
Joan,
Your calculated deceit and subconscious self deceit is stunning in both it’s depth and is depravity.
“Abortion (prenatal homicide) access” is a “constitutional” “right”? No, this is absolutely impossible.
First, there are NO constitutional “rights”. There are only natural rights. Constitutions and laws can either recognize (or fail to recognize) our inalienable natural rights, but cannot create them.
Second, there is and can be no natural “right” to commit the violent and lethal crime of prenatal homicide. We either have a natural right to live a full human lifespan or we do not. If we do, we then cannot be killed either in the born stage or the unborn stage of our lives. If we do not, then it follows that we have NO rights, since all rights flow from the basic right to live our lives. Having no rights, we cannot have a “right” to kill our children. Either way, the abortionist “position” completely disintegrates.
Since we do not and cannot have a “right” to commit prenatal homicide, the Constitution cannot recognize such a nonexistent “right”. Roe vs Wade was a complete fiction, an illusion, a fallacy which sprang from the minds of seven “judges” on the Supreme Court who lacked understanding of the human condition and ruled the way they wanted, contrary to the text of the Constitution and the objectively derived natural law.
To continue to argue in favor of a “right” to kill all human beings and deprive each of us of every minute of our lives is completely absurd.
Gerard Nadal says: February 6, 2011 at 1:49 am
“As DNA evidence is illustrating with frightening regularity, a great many innocent men are condemned to death.”
=============================================================
While it is incontrovertible that some men have been executed for a crime they did not commit, most of them were guillty of other crimes, some of which were capital crimes.
Few men who were executed for a crime they did not commit were ‘innocent’.
Humans are stupid and therefore imperfect and therefore their justice is imperfect.
But tho I read in the ‘book’ that GOD will hold us accountable as a community for murders committed by unknown persons, I have not read that HE will hold us accountable for doing our best to administer, justice and in the process executing some one who was mistakenly convicted.
GOD demands that we acknowledge when a murder has been committed in our community and that we assert publicly that we did not do it nor do we know who did but we declare we are free of the curse of ‘blood guiltiness’ associated with the murder. As it is written, ‘A curse without cause will not fall on us.”
There are ‘curses’ associated with the deliberate perversion of justice but I am not aware of any curses associated with making an honest mistake in the process of attempting to administer justice.
Suggest you do a word search in the ‘book’ for ‘justice’.
Sorry Gerard, have to disagree with you though you know I respect you tremendously. Those words of Christ are commandments for INDIVIDUALS not for society as a whole. By your reasoning and using those words of Christ we should NOT jail any rapist either because raped women if they are Christians should just “turn the other cheek”. Those words were a commandment to how we treat our neighbors our co-workers, our families… the people we come in contact day by day. They were not meant to dictate how a society deals with criminals.
Should he get the death penalty? Yes.
Way to go Joe.
Sydney,
Thanks for your observations.
Some people claim Jimmy Carter attempted to practice diplomacy using Christ’s admonitions.
I believe they were just trying to excuse the peanut farmers ‘Reign of Error’.
PP provides many more services than just abortion (many Planned Parenthoods don’t even perform abortions), and it is those services (such as free or inexpensive birth control), not abortion itself, that are less profitable and would not be offered without federal subsidization.
You mean if PP lost its federal funding, it wouldn’t provide nonabortion services it purports to be essential and unavailable anywhere else to poor women? I’m shocked to think that a nonprofit like PP would designate privately raised funds for purposes other than medical care for the impoverished. Shocked, I tell you, shocked.
A civilized, modern society only debases itself and its legal culture by resorting to acts of institutionalized killing as punishment.
PP’s institutionalized killing of the unborn to subsidize health care for the poor is a noble thing?
CAGED CASANOVA
Reagan’s would-be assassin Hinckley goes gaga for gal pal
http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/02/05/020511-news-hinckley-02/
On March 30, 1981, John Hinckley, then 25, fired six shots into President Ronald Reagan’s entourage as they exited the Hilton Hotel after the president spoke at an AFL-CIO luncheon.
Reagan was hit in the chest after a bullet ricocheted off his limousine. His press secretary, James Brady, was shot in the head and suffered brain damage and partial paralysis. Two police officers were injured.
Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity of 13 charges and has been living at St. Elizabeth’s since 1982. Gradually he has been granted more freedom, including permission to leave the psych ward in his mother’s custody for limited visits to her home.
In June 2009, a federal judge ruled that Hinckley — who still suffers from narcissistic personality disorder — could spend more time outside the hospital. He’s also been granted a driver’s license, but must give hospital officials advance warning for any intended trips and always carries a GPS tracking device.
===========================================================
Just another real life example of why being found ‘Not Guilty’ is not synonymous with being innocent.
And an arguement against life imprisonment instead of capital punishment.
Lori Pieper, I appreciate your attention to logical cogency. I think you will recognize that often within propositions, premises can legitimately remain unstated. This does not imply that they are not there, only that they are left out for whatever reason (sometimes to even mask incoherent propositions…mine was brevity). I do not defend the death penalty only on grounds that it was applied to Christ, only its inherent moral uprightness. The morality aspect is my preamble. Once it is understood that capital punishment cannot be rejected on moral grounds then consideration can move to other aspects of the death penalty such as just or unjust applications or if it’s even commanded.
I agree with you on what the ultimate purpose of the death penalty-salvation. However, this plan was not decided at the cross (Roman method), but before the foundation of the world. So, before the unjust Roman empire even existed, God formulated a plan in His mind which required temporal death for the payment of sin. The Son, of His own will stepped up to the plate and determined that He would take our deserved place and in exchange we get eternal life.
The death penalty was integrated into our method of salvation by God. With that said, can we imagine God using a method that is “malum in se” – like rape- to bring about our salvation? No we cannot, because God through His own will cannot sin. That was my only point: the death penalty is not malum in se and cannot be rejected on moral grounds.
God bringing about the death of His innocent Son is EXACTLY the same as the state executing a guilty criminal. That is the whole point. This is why Jesus is said to have stood in our place. We deserved it, but He willingly chose to take our deserved penalty- the just for the unjust. Someone needed to be there and Christ was worthy. I concede that if the Father forced His Son to submit to the death penalty that would have been immoral. But when Christ chose to do it of His own will before the foundation of the world and on through His last breath it was not immoral in any way.
I am not suggesting that all capital punishment is administered justly or that governments do not error or that we should give a blanket OK to any and all capital punishment. I do assert however, that the state is the only institute authorized by God to administer the death penalty. Otherwise we would have billions of vigilantes with no standard of justice. It is authority from God, not a man made for of punishment.
You ask “should we subject innocent people people to the death penalty because God supposedly did?”. My use of the unqualified word “subject” may have been unfortunate because of the implications of unjustness. I maintain that Christ willingly submitted to the death penalty and was not coerced or made to do so against His will. However, the fact that He was innocent is not the primary factor. Analogies can only go so far and requiring that one be representational in all aspects is asking too much. Again, if he Father forced Christ, then the charge of of cruel vindication could be asserted. But that was not the case, therefore any such charge is invalid.
1. God conceived and preplanned the death penalty (1Pet 1:20, Rev 13:8)
2. God commands the death penalty along side procreation and the new authorization to eat meat (Gen 9:5-6). All of which remain appropriate today.
3. Jesus affirms the credibility and justness of the death penalty (Mk 7:8-11)
4. Paul affirms the credibility and appropriateness of the death penalty (Acts 25:11)
5. The criminal on the cross with Christ affirms the credibility and justness of the death penalty (Lk 23:41)
Thanks again for your commitment to logical cogency (not unreasonable at all)…a rare quality in the Christian church today.
sGerard Nadal says: February 6, 2011 at 1:49 am
“As DNA evidence is illustrating with frightening regularity, a great many innocent men are condemned to death.”
============================================================
It could be more correctly stated that a DNA evidence is illustrating with reassuring regularity that a great many guillty men were correctly judged guilty and sentenced to death for capital crimes they actually committed.
ok – so by Joan’s logic at 10:16 we should have slaves – after all they produce so much more for our economy and are vital to the South. After all – look at all the good we do – helping them have shelter and clothes and think of all the clothes that are made from the cotton they pick. It’s a vital service, no?
Oh – and since it’s just a fraction of money that is spent elsewhere – we should look the other way. NOT. There is much we can do with that money and money spent like it (expanding abortion into Africa, ect.). We have people here that would benefit from job skills training, basic help regarding family life skills, etc. I am working with women now – teaching them budgeting, food preparation (I’m showing women how to use a slow cooker now – easy on the budget and creating good-for-you-foods – and a time-saver, too!).
By overlooking the grave evil they do – and profit from – we are putting ourselves at reaping the benefits of evil-doing. Like the slave-owner – we are profiting at others’ misery and usury.
These ‘medical services’ except abortion are available at local clinics and hospitals. No need of Planned Parenthood at all. We survived just fine without them once, and we can do it again.
IndyCAD says: February 6, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Even if I did not agree with what you wrote I would have to complement on the excellent manner and method in which you communicated it. I admire and respect your disciplined thought process.
You and Chris and Gerard are the kind of communicator to which I aspire to be.
Gerard…yes that is the same God.
Individuals cannot seek their own justice or an eye for an eye personally. Jesus forgave the women at the well because HE is God and can do that sort of thing. Just like He forgave many people in the old testament without abolishing or altering the law (David is a good example). When God chooses one option over another, He is not invalidating the other alternatives; only exercising His rightful authority.
At what point did the woman’s accusers present the legally mandated evidence to support their claims? Did this incident meet the biblical judicial requirements?
No new command was given. Perhaps you are mistaken sir.
“These ‘medical services’ except abortion are available at local clinics and hospitals. No need of Planned Parenthood at all. We survived just fine without them once, and we can do it again.”
So Joy, I assume you have a contingency plan for when you take down Planned Parenthood. You will make sure that the government’s Title X funding stream for PP gets redirected to local health departments, and ensure that a major capacity-building initiative for existing clinics takes place. I’m not entirely sure why you placed scare quotes around “medical services.” Do cancer screenings and the provision of birth control somehow not qualify as medical services?
I have enjoyed watching the debate – I believe there’s strong support in the Bible for the DP – I just feel that in the hands of humans, we’re so bad with it that we cheapen life through our application of it.
“Should Gosnell get the death penalty?” Yes, if legally convicted. Every abortionist should.
If committing the crime of abortion doesn’t deserve the death penalty, then nothing does. Read St. Thomas Aquinas to find out why, if you haven’t done so already. Or read how Pope Sixtus V turned the Papal States from the most dangerous place in Europe into the safest place in Europe in two years.
Several centuries of successful Western jurisprudence put St. Thomas’ endorsement of capital punishment into practice. Even Popes practiced it. It should go without saying that simply dismissing our ancestors’ understanding of capital punishment out of hand, when it was based in the most orthodox Christian teaching, is at the very least not an exercise in filial piety.
I don’t mean that women who have abortions should get the death penalty, most of whom get life without parole starting the moment they leave the death chamber. Regardless of their feelings or motives, they all deserve every prayer, every assistance we can offer them.
I mean those men and women who prey on the mothers’ fears or despair or greed, and who murder their unborn children for profit. They’re hired killers, period. Can we say that? If not, why not? Because it would be impolite? That’s what we’re going to tell the aborted unborn at our judgement?
Consider Dr. Tiller. Am I glad he got what he did? No. Do I think he had it coming? I think he spent his lifetime playing with (hell)fire. Am I sorry he’s dead, in my heart of hearts? Am I sorry about Satan, or Judas, or Hitler? Are you, in your heart of hearts?
I think the answer for all of us has to be: to leave them to Christ.
Do I think Dr. Gosnell has also spent his lifetime playing with (hell)fire? Yes, if what they say is true. Do I want Dr. Gosnell to suffer Dr. Tiller’s fate? No. I want him to have his day in court, and then his day in the gas chamber if he’s found guilty. Why?
Because I think the kindest thing we could do for him would be to help him stop offending God and express sorrow for his sins as soon as possible. Men like him need our every prayer and assistance more than anyone in this picture.
Peace to each and every one of you, including Dr. Gosnell
ensure that a major capacity-building initiative for existing clinics takes place.
Now that PPACA is law, it’s not Joy’s responsibility to have a plan. I’m sure the bureaucrats who are handling the influx of millions of new patients in 2014 can factor in the closure of PP clinics. But if you’re really concerned, why not donate to PP so their lobbyists can keep influencing the way PPACA is rolled out?
God bringing about the death of His innocent Son is EXACTLY the same as the state executing a guilty criminal. That is the whole point. This is why Jesus is said to have stood in our place. We deserved it, but He willingly chose to take our deserved penalty- the just for the unjust.
This would be the case perhaps if what we were talking about was mere physical death. It isn’t as though God just wanted to kill all sinners. What was at stake was eternal death, separation from God in hell because of our sins. So God did not subject His son to an earthly death penalty (as you admit, the Roman government’s sentence was unjust). It was an antonement because of his infinite worthiness for our sins.
I still maintain that the two things while analogous, are so different they simply cannot be compared with an degree of credibility. Unjust governments vs. an infinitely just God, an innoent substitute for the guilty party – how often does that happen in earthly executions? – the force of the state vs. no force at all. Trying to argue on this basis just clouds the issues when it comes trying to give a justification for the death penalty as we understand it. Far better to stick with the scriptural passages you mentioned.
I should add that I don’t believe a mere “substitutionary” view of the Atonement is the best explanation of it, and that may color my thought. It is the one that is the hardest to use with moderns, who tend to regard it as cruel, as I said. It may have kept many from conversion (it evidently did for C. S. Lewis, at least for a while).
My understanding of the Atonement is based on these explanations in Scripture.
“Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered; and when he was made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him, declared by God high priest according to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 5:8-10).
“Though he was in the form of God, [Christ] did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.” (Phil 2 6-8)
Christ, of course, did not need to learn obedience in his divine nature. He eternally gives himself to the Father in perfect obedience. But in his human nature, he did need to learn it, on behalf of us all. The fall of Adam and Eve and their loss of eternal life came about because of their disobedience. Taking on human nature, Christ healed this disobedience on behalf on all humanity in his perfect humility and obedience in his suffering and death. He draws all those who adhere to him into his obedience, and presents that perfect obedience and perfected humanity to the Father as our high priest, constantly making intercession for us by his perfect sacrifice. Such is my very halting understanding of these passages. (I know that there are other passages that can support other views and it’s not really my intention to get into a discussion of them, just to state how I see it).
Just to have something truly beautiful to think about this Sunday!
Ex-GOP I think I agree with you but when you use the phrase “cheapen life” are you willing to concede we “cheapen life” when we justify aborting innocent unborn babies? By Joan’s logic unborn baby’s lives are “cheap” and their mothers get to “choose” which babies get the “death penalty” but even the vilest murderer’s life is so “valuable” that the only “moral ethical and practical” way to deal with him/her would be life in prison.
yor bro ken, compliment appreciated.
Ex-GOP voter- Your line of reasoning is really where the focus should be. We do get things wrong. Therefore, we must hold unjust governments accountable in the area of capital punishment. I too question our (and all) governments ability to justly administer the death penalty. But like all things in a fallen world they can be misused (intercourse, alcohol, anger, guns etc.) God does not prohibit things on the basis of their misuse. He just demands that we use His standards and judgments instead of our own standards and judgments to prevent their misuse. When we deviate into the latter we get lost.
For example, I think all agree that the death penalty was instituted and used by people with God’s permission in the old testament (they just think it has been altered). God granted this permission knowing that fallible men would be the administrators. Paul wrote about submitting to governmental authority even though he was persecuted by those same people. Yet, he contended with them, corrected them and prayed for them without anarchically opposing their rightful authority.
Yes governments will do evil things because they are ran by sinful people. But when sinful people take on the mind of Christ they acquire the ability to counter corrupt thinking and actions. We too must contend with, correct and pray for government leaders. But we must not demonize what God has said is a good and helpful thing for mankind. Demand that it be administered justly, but don’t demand that it be abolished.
Gotta laugh whenever proaborts bluster about the death penalty, considering they enact it 3700 times daily against their own unborn children.
Thanks Fed-up!
It is clear that by PP’s own admission, the local health departments can take care of much of what is needed – but even better is to have the local medical clinics and hospitals help the poor as they should. Our local hospital is taking in more patients – especially poor ones.
oh – and as far as their fine medical staff at PP – when I was young and not as careful in my life regarding sin, I went to a Planned Parenthood, and they quickly gave me hormone pills. Never once did they ask me about my medical history – I am a DES daughter and my body has already been injured by artificial hormones. Never once did they urge caution. Never once did they care.
Oh – and have I ever told the story about a woman we met last fall? She was given the IUD when she was a teenager. She was not promiscuous or sexually active- but her parents insisted. PP never told her it could be dangerous to her uterine health.
5 years and a huge pelvic inflammatory disease later – she can not have children. She still blames the clinic who did not follow up on her, did not tell her the dangers and led her family to think that this was health care. Never once did they double check that she was ok. She was never able to have children of her own, but thankfully she adopted. She can not bring herself to step foot in that clinic again.
The mammograms, pap smears and other items can be done by doctors in other clinics not dedicated to the enshrining of free-sex in our culture. PP has an agenda and a way to profit from that agenda. It’s time we make them fly under their own wings instead of subsidizing them.
Carla:
“Just a reminder- Gerard Nadal’s name is Gerard. G E R A R D. :)”
Thank you for the rant by proxy, Carla. :-)
I’ve always wondered if people named Gerald get their name spelled as Gerard? Somehow, I suspect not. ;-)
Oh well.
I’m always good for a rant! :)
Dearest Nagem/Megan,
Hmmmm. Are you now going with Nagem as your moniker?
Pick one.
Carla,
I had difficulty posting under “Megan.” Thought I’d try out this one. It’s obviously me. :)
Hi again, Joy,
My mother had post-partum complications from having my sister….twelve YEARS after giving birth! I guess medical incompetence abounds.
Prolifer – I agree with you.
IndyCAD – I can’t make the logical last step that you make. I don’t think the system can be administered fairly enough in these days – plus, there’s a reasonable alternative. Back in the day, lwop (life in prison without parole) wasn’t as reasonable of alternative. Now, with that possibility, I just don’t see the justification to use the DP. Just because something is in the Bible doesn’t mean we should legislate it and that it is the best option for today’s society (could you imagine bringing back the year of Jubilee?)
I do not see the moral equivalence of a state-sanctioned execution of a murderer and the deliberant murder of an innocent, i.e. pre-born babies. There are obvious cases of killings that are moral – should we not have rescued the Jews from the evil atrocities and murders that the Nazi’s committed? The Just War Theory comes to my mind. What if someone were holding a gun to your child’s head and you yourself had a gun? Wouldn’t you pull the trigger to save your child from being murdered? I could never understand candle-light vigils being held outside prisons for those murderers that were about to be executed. Yes, we need to pray for their conversion and hope to God that they are repentent and go to their deaths at peace. Yes, we need to pray for the murdered victims’s souls and their families. What terrible suffering these families must go through. Sadly, many of these murderers go to their death not being remorseful.
Megan,
Yes, it is you!! LOL
If anyone is watching some football game today I hope the team you are rooting for wins!!
“If anyone is watching some football game today I hope the team you are rooting for wins!!”
LET’S GO JETS!!!!
Uhhh… never mind :-(
Go Vikes!
As it was once said about the PLO “They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity,” let’s not miss the opportunity here. I think we all need to take a step back, and consider the historical moment we are NOW living in, and also reflect very seriously on the PAST, as John Huertz OP has done. Time is just what happens so everything doesn’t happen all at once. Catholics especially should understand this, as the PAST become PRESENT in PRESENCE of Christ in the Eucharist.
For me, having spent many years on street corners as a Pro Life demonstrator, prayer warrior, sidewalk counselor, and rescuer of the unborn, I think I have had ample time to ponder the present moment and reflect on the meanings of the signs of the times. Not to boast or any such thing, it’s just that if you feel moved to open your heart, and prayerfully listen to the Word, you will find your self bridging time and enter into eternal Wisdom once in a while.
This Gosnell case is an opportunity that will be wasted and more time will be given to the enemy to wax worse and worse if we miss the importance of the moment. Gosnell is a microcosm of the horrors of the secular state. We are being given a history lesson that spans time and reaches back to the first murder of one human being by another. Cain gave himself permission to kill his brother. Roe gave Gosnell permission to kill babies.
We must try to make good from evil in every historical moment. If we had been present at the first murder and heard the punishment God gave Cain, and seen the horror on the face of Cain, I think this historical moment would come into clearer focus.
The mark of Cain is placed on Gosnell; he should be banished from society. In the process of trying this wretch, we have an opportunity to cleanse our culture of much wickedness that has attached itself to us by way of the “Culture of Death.” I must state here with more emphasis that Roe is and was an attempt by the Accuser to secularize our culture. Our wise Founders separated powers so tyranny would have no way to grow a weed in our land. The Judicial branch has allowed the weed of death to entangle the Tree of Liberty, the Tree of Liberty in Law.
I will be praying that the entire edifice of the Culture of Death will be examined during the course of this trial. I will be praying that the medical arts will be restored too its ancient honor. I will be praying that the fathers will be reunited with the abandoned sons. I will be praying that the Prodigals will return to the Fathers house. I will be praying that the three branches of government that our wise Founders established, be restored to their original balance, so that we could be FREE of TYRANNY, and be ALLOWED to GROW in Faith, that Faith which is the “essential support” for goodness in law and government.
Once again, Revolutionary Times have come upon the Sweet Land of Liberty. Let the guilty pay; Independence from Tyranny’s Day is nearer than we think. We cannot miss the opportunity. Or we will all pay in chains.
Ex-GOP voter,
These days are no better or worse than any other era in history. The only golden era was pre-fall. Based on your previous comment I assume you are Christian, therefore, I will speak to you as such. In the bible the are two sides to God’s philosophy of law. On one side there is righteousness and on the other side is justice. The punishment refers to justice and the righteousness refers to what is right (I’m not patronizing, just trying to be clear).
All punishment must fit the crime. For example; chopping a hand off for stealing isn’t sanctioned in the bible; restitution however, is the prescribed punitive response. No matter how how good we become at defending “hand chopping” for the offense of theft, it will never be approved as a biblical punitive response. Do you agree that hand chopping is an inappropriate method of punishment for theft? If so, without using the bible, please establish why it is inappropriate (that is rhetorical no need to response… just consider) My point is that we have no choice but to go to the bible to establish hand chopping as improper; otherwise it is just a man designed, sentiment based, punitive measure with no objective standard. It is in fact outside the perimeters of punitive discretion granted by God.
If the bible provides us with knowledge of what is right and wrong, it also by necessity must provide us with the appropriate punitive responses for those wrongs. Otherwise we are left to our own judgments and imaginations (which is biblically prohibited). Life without parole does not represent God’s justice any more than hand chopping does. It sits outside the perimeters of the punitive discretion that God has granted civil government. It is a method that man has come up with. You can always judge man’s methods by their results (prolonged jail time including life without parole is a failure by even man’s standards and we are paying for big time)
There are many symbolic rules in the bible that applied only to Israel. Our job is to find the mala in sa laws and distingusih them from the mala prohibita rules. The year of Jubilee is a symbolic rule; the death penalty is a punitive measure attached to mala in se laws.
Cut Gosnell loose among the general prison population. From what I’ve heard, child killers are at the bottom of the pecking order. Look what happened to Dahmer. Even hardened felons know the worst of the worst. Let them take care of him.
Doe
February 6, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Amen, I could not agree with you more! Too many people, especially so-called Catholics, will harp and whine about the death penalty as being evil and “against the humanity of the accused” yet will support the slaughter of the unborn quite easily.
Some folks deserve death and I’m certain Gosnell is one of them. May God have mercy on his soul, because He is the only one who knows what is in his heart.
“joan says:
February 5, 2011 at 5:22 pm
I’m pleasantly surprised to see that most people here do not support the death penalty (at least in this case). I myself categorically oppose it on moral, ethical, and practical grounds, and so my answer should be obvious. A civilized, modern society only debases itself and its legal culture by resorting to acts of institutionalized killing as punishment.”
Only if they’re unborn, then they deserve to die. If I didn’t know any better, I would swear joanie was working for National Catholic Reporter *gag*
“Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind.
(Gen 9:6)
Just FYI, murdering an innocent person by abortion or any other means is not the same as executing someone that is guilty of murder.
Murder is not right.
Killing (not the same as murder) can sometimes be justified. For example, self defense, war (if a just war).
IndyCAD – thanks for the thoughts – you take the second part of the argument though and say “DP is a punitive method in the Bible, so therefore is has to be okay”, but you don’t go back to what it is punitive for. Can we take the penalty from the Bible, but pick and choose what crimes to apply it against? I mean, we’d have a pretty bit stoning part of all those rebelious sons.
Also, on your Biblical argument against LWOP – seems like we could get around it pretty easily by giving somebody 1000 years in prison. It isn’t termed the same, but obviously, prison is an experience found throughout the Bible – so all we’re splitting hairs on is the length allowed.
I also think you too easily dismiss the thought that, in the hands of humans, we can’t apply the law fairly enough to claim it is moral. When two people commit the same crime – and one person buys their way out of the punishment while another gets the DP – I believe we’ve lost the moral authority in regards to saying we have to have the DP to uphold the value of life. If life is so important we must kill people who disregard life, than we (in my humble opinion), better have a pretty high level of justice and integrity in the matter – items that I don’t believe we have achieved.
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that we’ve reached the consensus that abortion is immoral, and constitutes the taking of a life.
Joan,
As the human offspring is alive at the moment of conception, I would encourage you to assume away. If you do not wish to accept the immorality of abortion, that is to your own detriment, and is a much more in-depth discussion; on the subject of life, however, science recognizes and agrees that a living human organism is present at conception. Denying the child his or her rights is a matter of moral poverty, but denying the truth of his or her life and humanity is a matter of intellectual dishonesty.
IndyCad,
Perhaps this question has been answered and I have missed it, but I’m a little confused. Forgive me because I do not possess the massive intellect of many posters on Jill’s blog, nor am I a skilled and experienced apologist. When I was reading through your comments (skimming, as my boys take most of my attention), it seemed as though you equated the self-sacrifice of Christ with the death penalty. Now, there is quite substantial scriptural evidence in support of the death penalty, it seems, but I don’t understand how the act of humbling Himself to die on the cross, obedient to His Father and always forgiving of His sons and daughters, could possibly be equivalent to the death penalty. Christ did not fight The Lord. He begged for another way, but He did not fight. This is hardly comparable, as I see it, to a criminal being convicted and sentenced to the death penalty. Am I missing something vital? Can you explain to me how you come to this conclusion? Or am I misunderstanding your comments?
Thank you in advance, and God Bless.
Go Vikes!
Carla,
Yet another reason to like you :)
Go Vikes indeed.
Ex-GOP voter
I never said it wasn’t complex..8-) Your focus is going even deeper because its application is not a simple yes and no. That is what the church needs and I applaud you for that. No we cannot pick and choose which crimes the death penalty applies to. But now were moving toward its specific applications which wasn’t my intent. However, to consider your example: the rebellious son case was one that Jesus condemned the leaders for not applying it. The rebellious son wasn’t the mischievous 12 year old who was simply a wild one. It seems to me that it’s an adult son with repeat offender characteristics. Totality of circumstances are needed to judge that one. There are other possible understandings that I acknowledge as well.
As for the length of time in jail being the defining tool, God does use prisons as you suggest (2Pet 2:4, 3:7; Jude1:6; Rev 20.) But the prisons are used as a holding for those being reserved for judgment. Their prison stay is not the actual punishment; it is the holding period prior to the final sentence with is….eternal death. God’s eternal philosophy of law is mirrored in His authorized punishments here on earth.
MaryRose, I only intended to address that the “use” of the death penalty is not immoral. There may exists objectionable grounds for the death penalty, but no one can legitimately claim that they object on moral grounds.
Enjoyed the conversations.
IndyCad, You mean to say, no Christian can object to all death penalty on moral grounds…. right?
I know I’m late to the party, but my answer is no. Gosnell should not be executed, but should receive a life sentence without parole. I do not agree with the death penalty because I am 100% pro-life from conception until natural death.
I am reminded of a story told about an elder monk from a mountain in Greece, who was informed that someone he knew was behaving in an improper way. The monk, grieved by the news, said that he would pray that the remaining days of his own life would be taken away, and be added to the other man’s life to give him more time to repent. May Kermit Gosnell have as many years as he needs to repent for what he has done.
I have very mixed feelings about the death penalty. Both sides of the debate have good points to argue, like they are both right in a way.
That being said, I must say that if we execute Gosnell, the pro-abortion people will probably make a martyr out of him, and such an execution will help the pro-aborts in the long run. Maybe it’s better to just give him life without parole.
Should the state grant mercy to Gosnell even though he did not do the same for those beautiful little babies? And what about the young women who died due to his negligence?
It seems that Gosnell was a man without a conscience. He preyed upon the weak and the vulnerable. Abortion was a means to an end–money, easy money, and lots of it. Late term abortions that even most abortionists don’t want to do became a lucrative cash cow for Gosnell. He should not walk as a free man another day in his life. There should be multiple investigations as to why there was a breakdown of oversight—there is some moral culpability for these crimes that must be shared by those who turned the other way, even as evidence was mounting that his place was a hellhole.
As a general rule I believe the death penalty should be retained and applied when necessary, under the strictest of circumstances so as to rule out any chance of mistaken guilt. I say this for one reason: There are some crimes that are so heinous that they cross the line into absolute madness. Anyone living in Illinois, or for that matter just about anywhere in the country, and who is old enough to recall certain events in the 1960’s and 1970’s will remember the names John Wayne Gacy and Richard Speck. Gacy was a man of two faces, one a “clown”, the good guy who at one time even served as a chaplain. Unfortunately it was too late before we saw the other face, that of an insidious monster. 33 young men ended up dead, buried in his basement or discarded in a nearby river. Speck systematically raped and killed eight nurses who roomed together. These crimes did more than end the lives of these young men and women; in a way they robbed us all of a sense of innocence in that we were introduced to unspeakable evil. When the cancerous growth is discovered sometimes the best way to deal with it is to excise it so that new growth will heal the wound.
Speck escaped the death penalty thanks to his sentence being overturned by the SCOTUS. He was subsequently re-sentenced to life. The state put Gacy on death row and he was executed by lethal injection, but not before we had to see pictures of him enjoying himself in prison. Ditto for Speck who was able to acquire drugs and party it up. Herein is one of the problems with life imprisonment: instead of paying the ultimate penalty the murderer can adapt to his surroundings and while not having a great life they nevertheless have far more than they permitted their victims.
Doe’s comment at 2:22 captures some of the circumstances wherein morally justifiable deadly force can be applied re war and self defense. The same principles apply to the death penalty, although it should be used in only the rarest of circumstances.
NO. He should get life inn prison, no parole. NO privileges either. Lock the door and toss the key away. The babies will have their justice when Goshnell dies naturally. He has to face GOD, the creator of all life, just like every human being does. Executing him won’t take back what he did. Executing him won’t bring back the woman that died on the table.
Supporting the death penalty, even for an abortionist, is NOT PRO LIFE!
It is important, for the moral health of our society, that we uphold the law of our land whilst we work for better laws and sentencing. Currently the law of the land supports the death penalty for premeditated murder. And he is facing eight counts, at least. Not only did he corrupt other people, including a minor, but he profited greatly from putting mothers’ lives, health and fertility at risk. And most ghastly, the painful death of the most helpless persons. Heinousness of a crime IS a consideration for the death penalty, to the best of my knowledge (correct me if I am wrong). So it follows that if anyone fits the legal definition of deserving the death penalty, Gosnell does.
There is no contradiction between praying for Gosnell’s repentance unto Christ, and accepting the death penalty. He can repent prior to execution; especially with years of appeals; it is quite a leap of logic to think that more time in a corrupted prison system is going to increase his chance of going to heaven. Additionally, it is absolutely not the justice system’s place to put a man’s possible salvation ahead of justice for his victims. Grace belongs to God, not the government!!!
Liz, with all due respect, nothing is going to bring back his victims….. so we should just forgo punishment altogether? Not the leap of logic you want to make here.
I do respect that Christians can agree to disagree on the death penalty. Personally I believe that both OT and NT supports it.
And certainly “a life for a life” validates the moral importance of an innocent’s worth. An innocent person is so valuable, that, if you take their life under certain criteria, you will lose yours. (Of course the current law should include protection for the unborn; but until it does he will only be legally condemned for post-natal murder).
However such a weighty penalty is indeed hard to institute properly. Perhaps our judicial system is no longer fit, if it ever was, to sentence criminals to death.
At the end of the day (trail), may justice be done. As angry as I feel about these tragedies, indeed we are all sinners…. may he repent.
Jill:
Cut Gosnell loose among the general prison population. From what I’ve heard, child killers are at the bottom of the pecking order. Look what happened to Dahmer. Even hardened felons know the worst of the worst. Let them take care of him.
You raise an interesting and tragic issue. If men (and women) are to be incarcerated by the state, what exactly does that punishment entail?
The state has a moral obligation to see to a prisoner’s safety. Being sentenced to X number of months or years in prison is supposed to be solely about the deprivation of one’s freedom to live in society for the specified period of time.
The rape of men in prison is a human rights atrocity in this nation that is so severe that it has become a part of the fabric of our national humor. That’s the extent to which we desensitize and absolve ourselves. Add to that the shadow system of inmate justice.
God will hold us accountable for this.
Our criminal justice system is too inept to be trusted to kill people so I am against government carrying out the death penalty. I am with most of the people on this site who say that they I would have no problem putting an end to Gossner BUT only if necessary to stop him from commiting another murder. To me this conclusion sounds eerily similar to the legal defense argument Scott Roeder used for killing Tiller. He knew of no other way to stop him.
Well, LizfromNebraska then I guess God is not pro-life since it is HE that instituted the death penalty. How good for us that you are the final word on the subject.
Gerard,
So you don’t think we are under the Noahic covenant any more? You think the rainbow means nothing anymore? You think God at some point revoked His promise to man (and all animals) that He would not destroy the earth again by flood? Because the death penalty is part of the same covenant, and you can’t throw out the commandments for man without throwing out God’s side of the covenant too.
The New Testament brings many changes, but tell me where you think Jesus did away with the death penalty. He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them.
No, quoting Paul is not a stretch. What do you think he means that the ruler “bears not the sword in vain”? What do you think the sword is for? A decoration?
So you want me to address the words of Christ you quoted. Fine. In Matthew 5, Jesus tells people not to avenge themselves of insults and personal wrongs. What does that have to do with a civil government punishing crimes? Nothing! Nobody is suggesting that individuals get together a lynch mob and kill Gosnell. We are discussing what the judge and/or jury should do. They are charged with doing justice, and God has never changed His mind about what that means. He is still the same as always.
In the case of the woman taken in adultery (the other quote you asked me to address) the proceedings are not being done in a legal manner. The Jews did not have authority to put anyone to death (that’s why they had to get Pilate to sentence Christ). They brought only the woman, not the man, which makes no sense if she was “taken in” adultery. Btw, check your NASB or commentary, and you will find that this account is missing from the oldest manuscripts. We don’t know who added it, but it is apparently not authentic.
Jesus did mention the death penalty in passing in one instance, and when He did, He spoke as if He agreed with it. (Matt. 15:4; Mark 7:10)
Now you mention a couple of other sayings of Christ, such as “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.” Of course. But you evidently don’t understand what biblical mercy is. It is not the opposite of justice. The opposite of justice is injustice. Biblical mercy is compassion. See its usage in Luke 10:37. Yes, I want Gosnell to repent and be saved. I don’t ask for him to be tortured. But God told civil government to execute murderers, so if I’m on the jury, it is my duty before God to vote for death.
Now the unforgiving servant. Gosnell hasn’t wronged me. I can only forgive him for what he’s done to me. Only God can forgive wrongs against another. To say that I will forgive his sins is blasphemous. If someone stole $500 from you, would you like me to “forgive” them for the theft. Now you are out $500. That’s injustice, not mercy. I obviously don’t have the authority to forgive the crime against you. What makes you think you can take the place of God in forgiving Gosnell’s crimes against these babies?
I have addressed the scripture you brought up. Now please explain why the Scripture I referenced doesn’t matter to you. (Genesis 9; Romans 13; Matt. 15:4)
When you do, can you stop the ad hominem nonsense and deal with the issues? You’ve told me I’m proud and fast-tracked for hell. You don’t even know me. And you’re lecturing me about mercy? Check your own eye first, please.
Wesley
“And certainly “a life for a life” validates the moral importance of an innocent’s worth.”
For this calculation to work, we need to accept the premise that the worth of both lives in the “exchange” have equal value, otherwise it’s not a fair trade and justice has not been served. I don’t know about you, but I don’t feel that I would be vindicated in death by a moral calculation that sets my murderer’s value as equal to my own. Wouldn’t it make more sense, morally speaking, to regard a murdered life as something that is priceless and that can never be repaid or compensated for, at least in any earthly domain, rather than half of an ad hoc calculation of human worth?
Why is it that you anti-choicers are so intent on executing or imprisoning doctors who perform abortions and not the women who go to them? After all,it’s the women who seek the abortions,and no doctor as far as I know,has ever gone to any pregnant woman and tried to force her to have an abortion.
This is rather like executing or imprisoning the hit man who does the murder(and I don’t consider abortion tot be in any way murder) and not prosecuting the person whohires the hit man. This makes no sense to me. If you anti-choicers are so dead set against abortion,why don’t you insist that women who have abortions be criminally prosecuted?
Gosnesll is in no weay typical of doctors who perform abortions in America. The vast majority perform abortions in the first trimester before a fetus can even experience pain,and those wyho perform late-term abortions because of serious medical complications use anesthetics to prevent suffering.
What Gosnell did was horrendous,but please don’t make it sound as though he were typical of doctors who perform abortions. He isn’t. He shuld be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but not exectuted.
Of course,if there had been help available to the unfortunate poor women who were his victims from the government,this whole appalling tragedy could have been prevented. If abortion becomes illegal again in America, horrible tragedies like the Gosnell affair will be the RULE,not the exception.
Gee Robert – most of the ‘anti-choicers’ are saying not to execute him. And yes – he is out of the ordinary – but in a very bad way.
When Roe vs Wade became law, the doctors performing illegal abortion just put a shingle up and started practicing abortions. No change other than in legality. It did not mean that the abortions were safer or better.
Women still die in abortions – beyond Gosnell’s practice. If the for-abortion people had insisted that his clinic be regulated and inspected, maybe some of this deadly business would have been avoided. But when an abortion clinic is closed, most of the business is avoided altogether. Consider the children’s lives as well as the women.
I’ve seen it from the sidewalk all to often – women choose abortion because of its secrecy – not because it’s their first choice. And when that choice goes away – there is the life-giving choice – to have the baby.
No one says every person needs to raise their baby. That is a difference choice. But every woman who chooses to abort their baby – the choice is death for her child pretty much every single time.
We see women all the time who chose life, and they do fine. They are amazed at what they are capable of – and big families have older children helping the moms with the new baby.
I’d rather see these kids live. We are a better society than stumping for the death of the little ones and harm to the moms. Just ask a post-abortive mother who lives with regret.
Absolutely not. He needs to sit in jail for the rest of his life and think about what he’s done.
Maybe by the time he dies of natural causes, he will have found forgiveness and salvation in Jesus Christ. We can only hope and pray.
The death penalty is wrong because it is unnecessary killing. Only killing as a last resort before the fact against someone who is a direct and immediate threat to the life of another human being is morally defensible.
I could not agree with you more, Joe.
The reason we don’t want the women prosecuted is that they are duped by the abortion industry. Most panic and go for an abortion – sometimes it’s to cover-up an affair, sometimes it’s to ‘continue their education.’ But in all things, the abortion does not make things better – only worse.
Take a woman I know. She wanted an abortion because she was getting back together with her former boyfriend. She thought that if she was pregnant with the prior boyfriend’s baby, the new boyfriend would leave her. Unfortunately, she panicked and had a later abortion. Turns out the new boyfriend would have stayed with her (he said so) and the other fact is that she turned her head during the abortion and saw her baby sucked into the vacuum jar and saw his mangled body.
She still regrets to this day the death of that youngster. And it’s something she has to live with for the rest of her natural life, since she can not take it back.
Do I want her to go to jail? No way. She was making a rash decision without thinking it through. It’s the doctor and the clinic that took advantage of her to the tune of $6oo. It’s them I want to see go to jail for taking advantage of women in crisis.
But this is only one of many many stories of women, who feel they ‘have’ to do this and then realize later they did not have to at all.
Robert Berger, we are talking about justice within the confines of the law. I think abortion is murder. I think murderers most usually deserve death. But I am not in favor of a lynch mob vigilante approach. I do not believe what Scot Roeder did was justified. If Roe v. Wade were overturned then I do believe punishment needs to be handed out to doctors who kill the babies and the women who allow them to be killed. In my mind the abortionist is the killer while the mother is guilty of child neglect and endangerment. A lot of women don’t comprehend what they are doing. They don’t see the little arms and legs and know its murder. The doctor does. Not the same thing in my opinion.
But do I believe all abortionists should be rounded up and executed? No. The law says what they do (as evil and insane as the law is) is okay. Gosnell took it a step further and killed those babies moments after emerging from their mother’s wombs which the law says is not okay.He also practiced unsafe medical skills that killed some women. He deserves judgement and punishment for that. The babies he killed were legally protected but minutes before in the womb were not. Same babies just different location. What Gosnell did shows how ridiculous abortion is and that the arguments that support abortion are like a house of cards waiting to fall down. They defy common sense and border on schizophrenia in trying to defend the murder of a baby in the womb then condemning the murder of same baby 2 minutes later when it is out of the womb. Absurd.
I personally feel if someone killed me I would not want my murderer to be put to death. If someone killed my son I would most definitely seek the death penalty. Its such a hard topic for me to comprehend. I do think it is biblically justified. I do see its merit in protecting society. Then I see the other side too, what about protecting even the most evil of human life? What about opportunity for repentance?
I am 50/50 when it comes to death penalty. I sit right in the middle and sway with the wind. I just don’t know.
Abortionists don’t go to pregnant women and force them.
Pregnant women have gone to abortionists and have been forced. Gosnell forced one to abort that I have read about so far.
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/01/24/kermit-gosnell-drugged-tied-up-woman-before-forced-abortion/
Not that you care, Robert. You don’t.
The fact of the matter is that women that have “abortions” are guilty of the murder of their child. When Roe is overturned and murder by abortion is made illegal, women who commit murder will have to be prosecuted.
Pro-Lifers tend to forget the primary victim of murder by abortion which is the baby. Let’s not forget that 100% of babies die from abortion (except a few), and very few women die.
My comments may be harsh, but they are true. We don’t think of slave owners as victims of slavery. We don’t think of Nazis as victims of the Holocaust, so why would we think of women that kill their babies as victims of abortion? Pro-lifers like to draw parallels between all of these atrocities, and then they back track so they don’t sound controversial.
Most women would take the way against abortion if they were truly given that option. And who sees that woman last? The abortion provider. They don’t talk about other options because it hurts then financially.
If women knew truly that they were capable, that they would receive help, that they are loved and can mother this new child – most would jump at the chance of making a better choice. I truly have talked to only a handful of women who REALLY understood what they were doing – and truly understood that their decision puts into play the death of their own flesh and blood. Only 1-3 women so far in 11 years in this business.
Most women have no idea that their baby has fingers and toes – even at 6 weeks. They have no idea that they can get help – from friends, family, the state, us and many other groups. They just want to be un pregnant and they do not think through that unpregnant – if not delivering a baby – means death for her child.
I am happy that Abby Johnson has compassion for those who are post-abortive and indeed for the abortion-industry workers – because most of them truly want to help, and they have no real notion that they harm.
This is not sounding non-controversial – it’s having compassion – it’s showing love. It’s not sweeping their sin away as no sin – they are as culpable as their awareness and cooperation with evil. But it is really rare that a person who TRULY knows what they are doing, understands all the ramifications both to body, emotions, and soul and proceeds anyway. Most are trying to put their fingers in their ears saying ‘la-la-la’ because they want the problem to go away.
I work with these women every day. I see their pain. I see the cost in their lives – and we have to help them. The ones who have had an abortion, who regret it, and heal are our biggest voices on trying to get women to be whole, functioning and to not choose abortion. I admire them greatly – they are courageous, generous, honest and loving. They are trying to give voices to the voiceless. They are trying to save lives.
Would I wish that they never took that path? Of course – it’s the very long way around. Do I want them jailed? No – helped, yes.
Yes. David Lewis. Women who have abortions pay someone to kill their child. I paid someone to kill my child. I know what I have done. I own it.
Many of us have been coerced, forced and lied to by omission. There is no informed consent when it comes to abortion.
You might want to spend some time reading some stories from Silent No More.
Abortion. One dead, one wounded.
Thank you Carla – for your beautiful witness and your beautiful heart!
Thank you joyfromillinois for your heartfelt words and compassion for us. Folks like you are the reason so many of us are able to speak out.
Hugs to you!!
ps
I would do ANYTHING to go back 20 years and run out of that clinic and fight for my daughter’s life.
I know – and thank you too!
Gosnell will get his day in court, which already is an act of mercy. Why do even base men get fair trials today? The influence of the Christian concept of mercy must have crept into man’s sense of a formal, cultural response to criminal acts and criminal actors. Jesus’ trial, execution and resurrection, the formation of his church and the eventual destruction of the Roman Empire followed. We have the legal system we have today as it was influenced by both Church and State down through the ages.
Hopefully, reasonable people will be able to set their biases aside when considering whether the result of the Church/State relationship on law has been beneficial for humanity or not. Hopefully, the Roman Catholic Church will be consulted by the prosecution team in this matter of Gosnell. Just as the Roman Catholic Church emerged from the ashes of the Roman Empire to guide States in finding their way out of darkness, it is hoped that the Roman Catholic Church will be allowed to assist the United States of America from falling into the real Dark Ages that the Gosnell case reveals.
What will Gosnell say in defense of his actions? Will he say that the women knew they were ordering the deaths of their children, and that he was only doing his job, and that the State seemed to be sanctioning his acts? Who will be on the list of persons subpoenaed to testify? Will Planned Parenthood be on the list, State inspectors,former Governors, who? Would Planned Parenthood place blame on Gosnell alone, should they be called to justify their part in this, or would they blame the women,too? Will the State consider conspiracy charges against health inspectors and all who were charged with protecting citizens? Is it possible to find Gosnell guilty without finding the whole edifice of the abortion industry and State cooperators guilty along with him? Is it possible that Gosnell could be tried and found guilty of the murder of the woman and the other charges dropped? Finally, will the 2,000 years of Church/State development of man’s sense of justice and mercy in law be ignored, once again, as it was in the case of Terri Schiavo?
At the end of the day, whatever verdict is reached in the case of The State v Kermit Gosnell, it will be We the People who will have to accept the verdict of the jury. It has always been We the People who must live with the verdicts of juries. In the case of Kermit Gosnell, it’s all about WHO “We the PEOPLE” ARE.
SydneyM at 10:36,
I completely agree with you. It is absolute insanity that by law the life of a child is protected outside the womb and as you wrote 2 minutes before while still inside the mother’s body, the child can be killed. This is CRAZY and so EVIL.
I don’t support the death penalty, but I think it’s important to draw a sharp moral distinction between the death penalty and abortion. They are founded on diametrically opposed premises.
The underlying premise of abortion is that the unborn child’s life has no value that the State need recognize and protect.
The underlying premise of the death penalty is that the convict’s life has so very much value that the State’s depriving him of that life constitutes the ultimate penalty for his crime.
I’d also suggest that opposing the execution of Kermit Gosnell on the grounds that he may repent fails to recognize something of the psychology of repentance.
I think he’d be more likely to repent in the face of certain death: a known date of execution looming at some point in his future. This, I think, would create a more serious crisis of conscience-searching than life in prison, with death a far-off event at some unknown time in the future.
So those wishing what’s best for Gosnell might actually do better to support his execution.
But all that said, I reiterate that I do not support the death penalty.
If abortion becomes illegal again in America, horrible tragedies like the Gosnell affair will be the RULE,not the exception.
So, Robert, are you saying that if abortion is made illegal, that more illegality and brutality will be the end result?
So, before abortion was legalized and made all nicey-nicey and “officially medical,” there were thousands upon thousands of Gosnells running around, severing born babies’ spines with surgical scissors?
Hey Megan,
I just found a bunch of posts that got caught in the spam folder – yours were among a ton of other people’s. Not sure why any of them are getting hung up there, but if your post doesn’t go thru in the future, please email a mod so we can fish it out of spam, ok? Thanks! :)
To Robert at 10:11:
Perfectly nice women were once influenced to beat, browbeat and even murder slaves, thinking this was what was expected of them. They had no idea they were victims of a corrupt system, and their own personhood was being disfigured by their acts on others, whom they were told were not persons.
Planned Parenthood is, in my mind, a criminal enterprise, like drug dealing, where buyers become sellers, creating ever more victims in the self-perpetuating, self-abusing, other-abusing process that Christians call “sin”. When sin becomes “normalized”, normal people begin to act abnormally, and sin becomes “banal”. Have you ever heard of the “Skinner Box” experiments? I suggest you take a look into how people can be influenced by authority figures. Might open your eyes to how these women end up killing their own flesh and blood.
To my mind, people can be “normal killers” one day, and then see that “normal” AIN’T so normal the next, once they “see behind the curtain” of lies and half-truths they’ve been told by authority figures. When their eyes ARE finally opened, THEN the Truth can heal. But not until then can one person say that the other is “guilty”. And even then, FINAL judgement will ALWAYS be rendered at a Higher Court, where the True Victim waits to judge.
You have just read, I hope, the courageous testimony of women who have been deceived, finally accepted they were deceived, and gotten to a resource like “joy” (perfect name,btw), who could provide the healing art of mercy to these women, through access to the Source of Love and Mercy Itself, personified by the Great Lover of Souls hanging on a Cross for US. Women deserve better, and it’s women like joy who give them that.
I don’t dare ask these women who have been healed what they think should be done to others who are in the position they once were. I suspect there are more than a few who pray at abortion clinics, but if they’re there, I certainly won’t ask why. I DO know that a person who has asked for forgiveness from a truly repentant heart will receive it. The power of the Forgiver at the moment of forgiveness will flow through that person like a mighty stream of Love for eternity. I know that. And I know that there can NEVER be any power that is greater than that. Ever.
Beautiful post, Mark K. Thank you.
I know The One of whom you speak. The Lover of My Soul has heard the cries of my heart over my abortion and in His mercy has forgiven me.
To Carla:
Funny thing is, it’s time to pray the Chaplet now. Peace.
To Eric:
Your words ring true. I think it was old Ben Johnson who said, “Nothing so concentrates the mind as the prospect of a hanging.” Peace.
Thank you Mark K. You are a person of peace, as are others on this blog. Peace to all humans – unborn and born alike.
And Joy is my real name – I can thank my parents for that! And i am finally growing into my name, God-willing.
Peaceful Warrior, born in November, named after god of war, tattoo of Mars on left shoulder( Our Lady of Guadalupe~ Skorpio was ”on” l. shoulder of her mantle on Dec 12, 1531), “Recovering Anti-Catholic” confirmed July 13,1997 80th anniversary of the day OL of Fatima showed Lucia,Jacinta & Francisco a vision of hell & told them “In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.” Post-abortive father of two(IUD)
http:myhike4life.yolasite.com/ also Google Mark Kimble Protest
pleasure to meet you, Joy & Carla, and peace all peaceful warriors
“I must believe in miracles. If I do not, I am not thinking rationally.”~~Simon Wiesenthal, Nazi Hunter
Amen. Beautiful, just beautiful.
correction on my 12:38 post today: it was Stanley Milgram’s experiments on how people respond to authority figures to which i was referring in my post, I had him confused with BF Skinner, who worked with animal, not human subjects. Human error, sorry for the misinfo, will be more careful in future. Peace.
Here is what pro-aborts on this blog and elsewhere need to understand about Dr. Gosnell. He is the product of a culture of “choice” that routinely endorses, promotes, and participates in the destruction of millions of unborn babies. From time to time this is what we will get and to think otherwise is to fool oneself. Abortion is legal and in his case it was also a means to a lucrative income and a very comfortable lifestyle.
Dr. Gosnell “gamed” the system, betting that the regulatory agencies would continue to look the other way as they had for so many years. It did not matter to Dr. Gosnell that his methodologies went beyond the legal boundaries because he understood the guidelines prescribed by law were a farce because they were un-enforced. He also knew very well that there was not one iota of difference between the lives destroyed before birth than those he destroyed by “snipping” after birth. So in his mind it was a very small leap when a paying customer came to him to “get rid of a problem” that he would use extralegal methods when necessary to accomplish just that.
So when the question is raised as to whether he should be executed for his crimes against babies there is a great deal of hypocrisy on the part of the state in that the same legal system that says killing a child is permissible if it is yet to be born and the mother agrees to it but it is illegal when the death of an unborn infant is imposed upon the mother against her will. Perhaps this legal conundrum will be resolved when personhood for the unborn is established in law.
Then there is the question of women who died due to his criminal negligence. Gosnell was arguably at his most vile in his utter disregard for women whose lives were completely dependent upon his medical judgment. He failed them in the worse way possible.
Not only should the doctor get the death penalty, but any woman who may have conspired with him should get it. In fact, if abortion becomes illegal, women should be punished for having illegal abortions just as doctors should. If it is a life sentence to kill a 2 year old, it should also be a life sentence to have an abortion, provided we believe life begins at conception. To only punish the doctor is hypocrisy.
Thank the Heavens that the Steelers did not win.
Ken: “I reiterate, I will donate the .22LR cartridge and volunteer to punch Gosnell’s one way ticket to his eternal destination if, and only if, a jury of his fellow citizens finds him guilty of murder and they and/or the judge sentence him to death.”
I don’t see any necessary contradiction in people being both pro-life in the abortion debate and still in favor of the death penalty.
I do see a problem with it being much more expensive to go through the court processes pursuant to a death penalty case versus keeping somebody in prison for the rest of their life – last night some TV commentator said the multiple is now 6 times, and for years I’ve heard that it’s much cheaper to just lock ’em up and give ’em room and board “forever.”
I had never looked at it that way Doug. The more common perspective on this is that the death penalty would save money cause it would be cheaper (even if the government had to buy their own bullets) to kill them so you wouldn’t have to give them room and board.
WHO ARE “We the People”?
This event will define who “We the People” are, precisely, at this historical moment. Gosnell is real; this really happened, and it happened in OUR time. How we respond to this event will define us. Our choices will reveal who “We the People” are.
“Who do you say I am” ?
When the public sees protest signs that show aborted babies, they must choose to define who the unborn are. They are real persons, being killed in OUR time, and our choices reveal who “We the People” are.
“We the People of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union, promote the general welfare, provide for a common defense, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity…”
How can “We the People” say we are making the blessings of liberty secure for our posterity when we cannot define the unborn as included in “ We the People” and, as such, worthy, by birthright OF the blessings of liberty ?
I’m pro-life and I support the death penalty. Taxpayer money should not be spent to keep a piece of ghoulish garbage like Gosnell alive. I think he should be put to death by having HIS spinal cord “snipped”; I’d even volunteer to do it if no one else had the guts.
Conway – it costs a LOT more money to kill him actively through the DP.
I had never looked at it that way Doug. The more common perspective on this is that the death penalty would save money cause it would be cheaper (even if the government had to buy their own bullets) to kill them so you wouldn’t have to give them room and board.
Truthseeker, yeah, if it was just a matter of execution, but we have the court appeals process that automatically goes on for some years and several court proceedings. In practice it’s often 20 years or thereabouts until the execution is carried out, if ever it is. The cost of this is quite a bit more than just room and board for the prisoner, even if it’s for the rest of his life.
I’m not saying it should be this way, either. I’m for the death penalty, and there are some cases where not only is there no reasonable doubt, there’s no doubt whatsoever. For example, if there is a confession, witnesses, etc., then I say carry out the execution right away.
While the cost of the death penalty vs. life imprisonment is an interesting question, it really has no bearing on what justice in this case would require. Neither life nor justice are measured in monetary value. Let’s not support or oppose the death penalty based on a pragmatic cost-benefit analysis.
If convicted, Gosnell has taken human life, and justice demands–nay, God demands–that his life be taken.
Everyone is so worried about what would cost taxpayers more money. I want lower taxes like anyone, but in this scenario, we are talking about someone that has killed a bunch of post born babies, and probably thousands of pre-born babies. I don’t care about taxpayer money in this scenario, I want justice for the babies.
Conway, I disagree with your point of view, but I respect it.
I have a couple questions for you though. What gives people the right to life? Is it the fact that we’re human? Is it how good we are? Who gives us this right to life? Who can take it away?