Abortion - States Rights

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='MissScripture' timestamp='1305333433' post='2241108']
Why would it matter that he wrote a letter to his girlfriend? He could still lie in a letter to his girlfriend.
[/quote]

Why would he say, "I didn't mean to kill the F@$$%T" and be lying about it? It sounds like a confessional to everyone that I have ever asked. The letter can be found online, or used to be able to.


[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305337217' post='2241141']
THe crime happened in1989 , no DNA testing wasnot all that in 1989, it onlycame into commercial use in 1987. THe DNA techniques in use were not all that good and so on. DNA was not even admissable as evidence in Texas until 1991, yeah I am shocked it wasn't checked for DNA.[/quote]

If you go back and re-read what I wrote, you'll see that at the time of his execution, his lawyers were trying to get a stay of execution to DNA test it.

[quote]Well they didn't becuase it was not admissable as evidence, becuase it was not deemed trustworthy.
[/quote]

You don't make sense here.

[quote]Texas does not sentence anyone to death. Juries do, please learn something about Texas law before criticising it.
[/quote]

That is Texas, when we talk about a "jury of your peers", that is the people of Texas. When the verdict is read, it reads, "the state of texas sentences you to...", as a matter of fact, often it says, "Richard Cartwright VS The State of Texas". Therefore learning something about linguistics before you go running your mouth.

[quote]On that note, you said George Bush refused to grant a stay,that is true,you failed to mention that Bush’s staff failed to mention to him that Jones wanted to test the hair for DNA.
[/quote]

His staff represents him and when he was running for president he said that he knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that everyone sentenced to death or on death row, was guilty.

[quote]Yes they have a differant context,also have a differant level of authority, and not in your arguments favor.
[/quote] Not true, it completely favors my argument, you're just putting your opinion as a Texan against that of the Catholic Patriarch.

[quote]No I didn't say that, you said that thereason EL Salvasdor had the highest murder rate in the world was that they were poor..... THAT is what you said.
[/quote]

I did say that but i didn't say that it was because they were savages, you said that.

[quote]I just asked, it had to do with your opinion on the Statutes, not anything else. I have, and I will say again,I would rather be tried under the Texas statute.
[/quote]

You never asked me this question, you said that you would rather be tried under the Texas Statute. I'd never want to be tried in Texas, are you kidding? Many sentenced to death have been found to be innocent a few days before execution and many after execution. Spare me that injustice.

[quote]DNA evidence was not admissable when he was tried,so that arguement is irrelevent.
I am not complicating it,I am just showing that your simply so sure of your own rightousness you don't want to listen about the realities of the cases.
[/quote]

No it's not irrelevant, it proves that innocent men are put to death. It undermines the whole purpose of one innocent man is put to death, sorry.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305340489' post='2241187']
Why would he say, "I didn't mean to kill the F@$$%T" and be lying about it? It sounds like a confessional to everyone that I have ever asked. The letter can be found online, or used to be able to.
[/quote]


So, a letter where he admitted to killing the guy would be used to prove his innoccence?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Why would he say, "I didn't mean to kill the F@$$%T" and be lying about it? It sounds like a confessional to everyone that I have ever asked. The letter can be found online, or used to be able to.[/quote]
Perhaps he felt bad about rolling over onhis buddyand was trying toget him off, knowing that since he had alreadybeenconvicted of th crime he couldn't get the death penalty or any other punishment? I mean who wouldn't do that for thier buddyafter rolling over on him and them him getting sentenced to death?

[quote]If you go back and re-read what I wrote, you'll see that at the time of his execution, his lawyers were trying to get a stay of execution to DNA test it.[/quote]

Yes, I understand, but you said: "Chances are they wouldn't have convicted him if they'd have known that piece of hair wasn't his."

Not only is this speculation that cannever be proven either way, but there was no way tomake that determination at the time.


[quote]You don't make sense here.[/quote]

Make total sense, they DNA was not admissable as evidence, there was nowaythat they would have knowledge of whose it was beyond the expert testimony

[quote]That is Texas, when we talk about a "jury of your peers", that is the people of Texas. When the verdict is read, it reads, "the state of texas sentences you to...", as a matter of fact, often it says, "Richard Cartwright VS The State of Texas". Therefore learning something about linguistics before you go running your mouth.[/quote]

No it doesn't. The Forman of the Jury reads the virdect, And says, "We the jury, sentence ______ to ___________" Nothing aboutthe state of Texas is said. I least nothing else was said then I was the forman of a Capital Murder case and I read the verdict. The Judge then repeated our sentence to him, but said "____________ youhave been sentenced to__________.

[quote] His staff represents him and when he was running for president he said that he knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that everyone sentenced to death or on death row, was guilty.[/quote]


His staff failed to give him the facts, while that may have been a failureof thesystem, it is not a failure of the man, I advise you to tread carefully onthis line of reasoning. It may leadplaces you don'twant to go.

[quote] Not true, it completely favors my argument, you're just putting your opinion as a Texan against that of the Catholic Patriarch.[/quote]
I differ in opinion on this matter from the deceased Catholic Patriarch, I choose to support the opinion of The Ecumenical Councils and the Doctors of the Church, and no Pope has forbidden that disagreement.




[quote]I did say that but i didn't say that it was because they were savages, you said that.[/quote] No You said people kill other people becuase they are poor. HTats not saying the poor are savages at all
You never asked me this question, you said that you would rather be tried under the Texas Statute. I'd never want to be tried in Texas, are you kidding? Many sentenced to death have been found to be innocent a few days before execution and many after execution. Spare me that injustice.



[quote]No it's not irrelevant, it proves that innocent men are put to death. It undermines the whole purpose of one innocent man is put to death, sorry.[/quote]

It is irrelevent, and it proves no such thing, it proves that that piece of evidence was misinterpreted, it certianly does not prove he was innocent.

So,I ask you,do you believe that innocent men have the right to resist arrest?

[Winchester]

The Church says governments may levy the death penalty. As Saint Augustine said: "Roma locuta est, so shut up, hippie."

[havok579257]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305391812' post='2241369']
The Church says governments may levy the death penalty. As Saint Augustine said: "Roma locuta est, so shut up, hippie."
[/quote]


only in rare instances.

[Winchester]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305399591' post='2241461']
only in rare instances.
[/quote]
I'd say it's pretty damned rare, right now.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305399979' post='2241464']
I'd say it's pretty damned rare, right now.
[/quote]
The US has had 1,246 executions in the last 34 years.... seems pretty rare ina country of 300,000,000 people

[havok579257]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305399979' post='2241464']
I'd say it's pretty damned rare, right now.
[/quote]


how many of those people killed by the death penalty were a danger to the citizens of the state and unable to be properly contained by the government? cause that's the rare instance the church says its ok. are you really going to argue that all the people killed by the death penalty were unable to be properly contained by the state?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305401008' post='2241475']
how many of those people killed by the death penalty were a danger to the citizens of the state and unable to be properly contained by the government? cause that's the rare instance the church says its ok. are you really going to argue that all the people killed by the death penalty were unable to be properly contained by the state?
[/quote]


If I live i can escape, If I live i can kill others. The containment that would be required to prevent that possiblity is soterible as to be much much worse than death.

Regardless that is not the Teaching of Church, I get really tired of hering about stuff being the teaching of the Church when clearly it is not. THe unbroken Tradition of the Church-- Tradition with a big T---is that Captial punishment is morally licit.
The Teachings of infallable, unalterable,uncritizisable Ecumenical Councils are that capital punishment is morally licit, and even obligatory in certian cases.

What you are talking about is the Current teaching of bishops regarding the licitness of the application of that licit and moral act. This area has not been settles, and our Pope has said that we are free to disagree.


Which side is not listening tothe teaching of the Church?

[havok579257]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305401594' post='2241482']
If I live i can escape, If I live i can kill others. The containment that would be required to prevent that possiblity is soterible as to be much much worse than death.

Regardless that is not the Teaching of Church, I get really tired of hering about stuff being the teaching of the Church when clearly it is not. THe unbroken Tradition of the Church-- Tradition with a big T---is that Captial punishment is morally licit.
The Teachings of infallable, unalterable,uncritizisable Ecumenical Councils are that capital punishment is morally licit, and even obligatory in certian cases.

What you are talking about is the Current teaching of bishops regarding the licitness of the application of that licit and moral act. This area has not been settles, and our Pope has said that we are free to disagree.


Which side is not listening tothe teaching of the Church?
[/quote]


i am listening to the pope and CHURCH teaching. he has talked about how in america today there should be really no use for the death penalty. i understand you want the death penalty to be used whenever but the church states it is to be used only in instances where the state is unable to contain a prisoner. that is CATHOLIC church teaching.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='MissScripture' timestamp='1305341108' post='2241195']
So, a letter where he admitted to killing the guy would be used to prove his innoccence?
[/quote]

Reading and Comprehension, I never said that Richard Cartwright, who was executed wrote a letter to his girlfriend. I said that his co-defendant who was not executed, who allowed Richard to take the fall, wrote a letter to his girlfriend admitting to the killing, that was not admitted in court evidence during Richard Cartwrights Trial.

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305390954' post='2241359']
Perhaps he felt bad about rolling over onhis buddyand was trying toget him off, knowing that since he had alreadybeenconvicted of th crime he couldn't get the death penalty or any other punishment? I mean who wouldn't do that for thier buddyafter rolling over on him and them him getting sentenced to death? Yes, I understand, but you said: "Chances are they wouldn't have convicted him if they'd have known that piece of hair wasn't his."

Not only is this speculation that cannever be proven either way, but there was no way tomake that determination at the time. [/quote]

This makes no sense whatsoever. He wrote the letter to his girlfriend and according to all evidence we have available to us, never intended for his girlfriend to give it over to the courts. Conspiracy Theory much? Sure there wasn't DNA evidence at the time of his trial but before his death and the death of many others.

[quote]Make total sense, they DNA was not admissable as evidence, there was nowaythat they would have knowledge of whose it was beyond the expert testimony
[/quote]

How did they determine that the piece of hair was his to begin with? Through some dude giving his bogus opinion. If we're talking about a life or death situation, that sounds like a gamble that is not worth it. Atleast not with my life, you can gamble yours against those odds if you want to...


[quote]No it doesn't. The Forman of the Jury reads the virdect, And says, "We the jury, sentence ______ to ___________" Nothing aboutthe state of Texas is said. I least nothing else was said then I was the forman of a Capital Murder case and I read the verdict. The Judge then repeated our sentence to him, but said "____________ youhave been sentenced to__________. His staff failed to give him the facts, while that may have been a failureof thesystem, it is not a failure of the man, I advise you to tread carefully onthis line of reasoning. It may leadplaces you don'twant to go.[/quote]

That's not true, it repeatedly says "The STate of Texas VS Richard Cartwright", etc. Afterall it is the State of Texas [or whichever state] Collectively that stand behind it. You're really going to try and fight me on this? You'll lose my friend.

As for Bush, yes it is, his staff represents him. When Obama's staff fails him, such as in economic situations, he takes the fall.

[quote]I differ in opinion on this matter from the deceased Catholic Patriarch, I choose to support the opinion of The Ecumenical Councils and the Doctors of the Church, and no Pope has forbidden that disagreement.
[/quote]

No you chose to pin your opinion and your interpretation of the Catholic Church's position against that of a deceased Catholic Patriarch that will probably become a Saint.

[quote]No You said people kill other people becuase they are poor. HTats not saying the poor are savages at all
You never asked me this question, you said that you would rather be tried under the Texas Statute. I'd never want to be tried in Texas, are you kidding? Many sentenced to death have been found to be innocent a few days before execution and many after execution. Spare me that injustice.
[/quote]

Do I need to cite you on this? You said, "so you're saying that poor people are savage" and I said, "no". Go back and re-read what you wrote, who mentioned the term "savages" first? YOU DID, ADMIT IT! And many innocent people have been acquitted days before their execution and often days after their execution, quit trying to twist the facts or deny them because they're too much for you conscious to handle.

[quote]It is irrelevent, and it proves no such thing, it proves that that piece of evidence was misinterpreted, it certianly does not prove he was innocent.
[/quote]

It proves that he was innocent as far as that piece of hair is concerned. Once again Texas calling witnesses to give factual evidence and only convicting people based upo opinion.

[quote]So,I ask you,do you believe that innocent men have the right to resist arrest?[/quote] What are you talking about? I think that innocent men have a right not to be arrested for crimes that they did not commit. Just as with the situation in the 1999 drug arrests in Tulia Texas. People were convicted upon false evidence by an undercover officer that was proven to have lied. After the whole country had condemned him, what did Texas do? They gave him an award! This is justice right?

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305399979' post='2241464']
I'd say it's pretty damned rare, right now.
[/quote]

Rare you say huh? The United States comes in at #7 in the world, above Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. and just below Egypt. When George W. Bush was Gov. of Texas, he presided over more executions then any other governor in US History. I'd say that for the standards of our country, that's quite a bit. Maybe I just value human life a bit more, who knows.



[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305401008' post='2241475']
how many of those people killed by the death penalty were a danger to the citizens of the state and unable to be properly contained by the government? cause that's the rare instance the church says its ok. are you really going to argue that all the people killed by the death penalty were unable to be properly contained by the state?
[/quote]

I'm glad that you mentioned this point, because this is the very point that [H.H.] Pope John Paul II mentioned but was obviously dismissed by atleast one Catholic on this forum.

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305401594' post='2241482']
If I live i can escape, If I live i can kill others. The containment that would be required to prevent that possiblity is soterible as to be much much worse than death.[/quote]

I guess Pope John Paul II never took that into account, what an idiot he must have been. Given your mentality on the death penalty, and all around devaluing of innocent human life, I think that your own prescription might fit you nicely.

[quote]Regardless that is not the Teaching of Church, I get really tired of hering about stuff being the teaching of the Church when clearly it is not. THe unbroken Tradition of the Church-- Tradition with a big T---is that Captial punishment is morally licit.
The Teachings of infallable, unalterable,uncritizisable Ecumenical Councils are that capital punishment is morally licit, and even obligatory in certian cases.
[/quote]

JPII must have been unaware of this too, man that guy should have been required to take Church History 101 before they let him be Patriarch, what a moron he must have been, I guess it wasn't just the Parkinsons.

[quote]What you are talking about is the Current teaching of bishops regarding the licitness of the application of that licit and moral act. This area has not been settles, and our Pope has said that we are free to disagree.
[/quote]

Probably those who followed Pope John Paul II to the letter, when they should have just dismissed him as a senile old man, or those that pin their own opinion against that of the Church. I'll let you decide.

Which side is not listening tothe teaching of the Church?

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305403045' post='2241494']
i am listening to the pope and CHURCH teaching. he has talked about how in america today there should be really no use for the death penalty. i understand you want the death penalty to be used whenever but the church states it is to be used only in instances where the state is unable to contain a prisoner. that is CATHOLIC church teaching.
[/quote]

Sincere Catholics, such as yourself, is what makes me want to be Catholic sometimes.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]
This makes no sense whatsoever. He wrote the letter to his girlfriend and according to all evidence we have available to us, never intended for his girlfriend to give it over to the courts. Conspiracy Theory much? Sure there wasn't DNA evidence at the time of his trial but before his death and the death of many others.[/quote]

Why doesn't that make sense, it doesn't take a genius to know you can't be tried twice for the same crime, write a letter to your girlfriend saying you did it and tell her to take it to the police to cast doubt on whether or not your friend, who you through under the bus, actually did it. That isn't a conspiracy thats just one guy whoisn't a moron trying to help his friend who he screwed over. It is completely plausable.

[quote]
How did they determine that the piece of hair was his to begin with? Through some dude giving his bogus opinion. If we're talking about a life or death situation, that sounds like a gamble that is not worth it. Atleast not with my life, you can gamble yours against those odds if you want to... [/quote]


It was an expert, he was apparantly wrong, that does not immediatly mean Cartright was innocent. I am sorry that he was a crappy expert.

[quote]That's not true, it repeatedly says "The STate of Texas VS Richard Cartwright", etc. Afterall it is the State of Texas [or whichever state] Collectively that stand behind it. You're really going to try and fight me on this? You'll lose my friend.[/quote] Of course it says that, because Texas brought the charges, that does not mean Texas, passed the sentence. If I sue someone it would have our names there.

I willnot lose, I HAVE DONE THIS! Just a year ago I sat as the foreman of a jury deciding if a man was guilty of capital murder, I sat in that room and examined the dead mans bloody clothes, I measured the beaver dam bullet holes and calculated if the gun the procescution implied did it could have even made a hole that size, I read the virdect to the defendent,and when we senteced him I read that to him too, I did. I stood less than 20 feet from him, looked him in the eye and said ... " we the jury sentence you.... I know exactly who said what, it is not an event I will ever forget.


[quote]As for Bush, yes it is, his staff represents him. When Obama's staff fails him, such as in economic situations, he takes the fall.[/quote]
So it was JPII"s fault that allthose priest were molesting children? Bush was not given all the facts by people who should have given him those facts, that does not make him morally culpable for making a mistake, if he made one.




[quote]No you chose to pin your opinion and your interpretation of the Catholic Church's position against that of a deceased Catholic Patriarch that will probably become a Saint.[/quote]
JPII is either a saint or he isn't one, he is either with God in heaven or he is not, canonization is an confirmation of that status, not a making of it. And as I said, allhe would have had to do was say that there was no room for disagreement, but he didn't. The current Pope, has said hteir is room for ligetiment disagreement.

I disagree, by objecting to my disagreement as a violation of Church teachings you are disagreeing with The reigning pope, the Vicar of Christ.

[quote]Do I need to cite you on this? You said, "so you're saying that poor people are savage" and I said, "no". Go back and re-read what you wrote, who mentioned the term "savages" first? YOU DID, ADMIT IT! And many innocent people have been acquitted days before their execution and often days after their execution, quit trying to twist the facts or deny them because they're too much for you conscious to handle.[/quote]
You said that poor people kill people becuase they are poor, what exactly makes you a savage if not wonton murder?

What is many? 10, 20, give a number and stop hiding behind vagueness. I gave a very specific number of executions give a specific nuber of htose proved innocent days before thier execution.

[quote]It proves that he was innocent as far as that piece of hair is concerned. Once again Texas calling witnesses to give factual evidence and only convicting people based upo opinion.[/quote]
Expert testimony is virtually always opinion, thats why you find an authoritative opinion. Please tell me a state which does not allow expert testimony?



[quote]What are you talking about? I think that innocent men have a right not to be arrested for crimes that they did not commit. Just as with the situation in the 1999 drug arrests in Tulia Texas. People were convicted upon false evidence by an undercover officer that was proven to have lied. After the whole country had condemned him, what did Texas do? They gave him an award! This is justice right?[/quote]

I asked a very simple question, why couldn't you give a simple answer? Do innocent men have the right to resist arrest?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Rare you say huh? The United States comes in at #7 in the world, above Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. and just below Egypt. When George W. Bush was Gov. of Texas, he presided over more executions then any other governor in US History. I'd say that for the standards of our country, that's quite a bit. Maybe I just value human life a bit more, who knows.[/quote]

Well the governer of Texas cannot stop executions, nor can he pardon people so that really has little to say about him at all.




[quote]I guess Pope John Paul II never took that into account, what an idiot he must have been. Given your mentality on the death penalty, and all around devaluing of innocent human life, I think that your own prescription might fit you nicely.[/quote]
How have I devalued innocent human life, you apparntly don'tthink that innocents have a right to justice, being butchered in a yogut shop, or after complying to all the demands of your robber, having everyone in the video store taken to the back room and shot in the head, these people lives were not valuable at all. Their lives were not as valuable as the those who killed them.

THe Principle of forfieture is a very well established principle of Natural Law. It has been accepted by the church for a thousand years. You do not agree in the application, I understand, I do not object to your position, despite your contradiciton of the Infallable Councils, and of numerous theologians and popes, I don't question your Catholicity. I would appreciate it if you woudl stop questioning mine.

[quote]JPII must have been unaware of this too, man that guy should have been required to take Church History 101 before they let him be Patriarch, what a moron he must have been, I guess it wasn't just the Parkinsons.[/quote] See above

[quote]
Probably those who followed Pope John Paul II to the letter, when they should have just dismissed him as a senile old man, or those that pin their own opinion against that of the Church. I'll let you decide. [/quote]

Agian see above

[havok579257]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305447730' post='2241781']
Well the governer of Texas cannot stop executions, nor can he pardon people so that really has little to say about him at all.





How have I devalued innocent human life, you apparntly don'tthink that innocents have a right to justice, being butchered in a yogut shop, or after complying to all the demands of your robber, having everyone in the video store taken to the back room and shot in the head, these people lives were not valuable at all. Their lives were not as valuable as the those who killed them.

THe Principle of forfieture is a very well established principle of Natural Law. It has been accepted by the church for a thousand years. You do not agree in the application, I understand, I do not object to your position, despite your contradiciton of the Infallable Councils, and of numerous theologians and popes, I don't question your Catholicity. I would appreciate it if you woudl stop questioning mine.

See above



Agian see above
[/quote]


i understand you want someone killed as justice but that's not what the catholic church teaches. they teach that if a prisoner can be confined by the state properly such as in the united states, then the death penalty should not be used. only in cases where the person poses a risk to society and more deaths will probobly happen due to his imprisonment. for example, if bin laden had been captured and imprisoned in chicago and the taliban ontinued to attack the prison to try to free him. then the death penalty would be ok. although to use it on some murder who poses no such threat and can be confined by the state, the death penalty is not to be used.