Abortion - States Rights

[Winchester]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305474106' post='2241850']
As I said, if you want to moderate people talkin trash to people and hurling personal insults, I got no problem but apply it equally. However I should applaud this forum , it keeps reminding me why I'm NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC. thankx
[/quote]
Do you belong to another rite?

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305474246' post='2241852']
Do you belong to another rite?
[/quote]

None that recognize your Pope.

[Winchester]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305474734' post='2241856']
None that recognize your Pope.
[/quote]
Well, that's easily solved.
[img]http://romancatholicblog.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/15/pope_benedict_xvi_4.jpg[/img]
There he is. Now you will recognize him.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]If Pope John Paul had said, "I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that no catholic priests ever molested children" and that turned out to be false this example might fit but he didnt' make such a statement so again -FAIL [/quote]

If you are responsable for the failure of your staff then he is responsable for not knowing about it.... you can't have it both ways

[quote] I understand the sainthood process. Pope John Paul II completely agreed with the current Pope, he just didn't agree with your interpretation of the current Popes Statement so again FAIL[/quote]
Obviously you do not since you said he would soon become a saint. And that is your interpretation, I am sorry you don't see that. Your ability to be rude rather than make a rational arguement is truely amazing.



[quote]I never referred to them as savages, you used that term, I said that it was because of a lack of education, lack of government resources, poverty etc. That is completely different then saying that they are savages, as you have said.[/quote]

No its pretty much exactly what you said... They are uneducated, poor people without a strong government, so they kill people.

You do know what the word savage means don't you? Would you feel better about the term barbarians? I understand, you don't like the term, it has such a negative sound to it, but that is EXACTLY what you are saying, you just don't like it.

Glad to know that poor uneducated people just can't control themselves and have to murder peopleat a rate 50 times that of educated people who have more money.

[quote]Shouldn't putting one innocent man to death be one too many? I guess not in your world.[/quote]
Ah, you don't have a number? Your just using terms like --many-- because they sound good.

[quote]So you think that should be enough to put somebody to death? That's a severe devaluing of human life, good job - your G-d would be proud of you.[/quote]

alone, personally, no, I cannot imagine myself finding someone guilty based solely on someones expert opinion, much less sentencing him to death. But I was not on that jury, more than that his "Friends" turned and testified against him.



[quote]No you asked a complicated question that you tried to pass off as simple and you got an answer that fit the question.[/quote]

No it isn't a complicated question, it is a yes or no question. I have no trouble with qualification,but you should stillbe able to answer the question.

Do innocent men have the right tor esist arrest?

[quote]Yes he can, he can pardon and give a stay of execution in cases that need review.[/quote]
No he can't pardon, again your knowlege of Texas Law is flawed. He can give a single 30 day stay, he can only do it once, and he cannot just give pardons.

IF the Board of Pardons and Parole, of its own accord (the governor is not empowered to ask them to review a case) reviews a case and recommends to the Governor that someone be pardoned, then and only then can he pardon. Almost always the governor takes thier recomendation. Texas doesn't trust powerful governors, the executive power here is broken into numerous elected positions.



[quote]Factually inaccurate, I believe that innocent human life deserves justice. However it defeats the purpose and is no justice at all if you are putting innocent men to death. Where is their justice? Also, not putting murderers to death does not mean that victims are not getting justice. As a matter of fact, the death penalty is not meant to be about justice, rather it's supposed to be about protecting society.[/quote]

The principle of forfieture , which the Church has always subscribled to and never rejected says that they have forfieted their right to life. I have no problem with that.
You do, that is fine.

I believe that the death penalty protects society better than imprisoning people for life. I also don't believe that putting men in a box for 22 hours a day for the rest of thier life is humane or in keeping with human dignity.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

by the way FAIL is not a rational response.

[Winchester]

[size="7"]BOOM HEADSHOT!!!11!!!!![/size]

[havok579257]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305467015' post='2241817']
But it is okay when violent men continue to be a threat to other prisoners and prison guards.
[/quote]


then if that's the case put all prisoners in solitary confinement. i have no problem with this. this would keep violence in prisons to a bare minimum. the problem with your scenerio above is we would have to execute the majority of people in prison today since most people are a threat to other prisoners and prison guards. that is the nature of the beast. by locking up violent offenders and putting them with other violent offenders your asking for problems. also since a male prison is all males, males feel the need to dominate and even non violent offenders become violent in prison due to the fear of being dominated by other men.

although to execute all people who are violent in prison means the execution rate would SKYROCKET. the church does not condone this.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305473200' post='2241841']
Havok--- please donot persume to know what I want, you have no idea what I want.

Lets lookat the exact words of the CCC which being neither infallable, dogmatic, doctrinal (in and of itself, certianly both dogma and doctrine are expresed there, but being part of the CCC does not make them so) can at least be argued to be the current teaching of the Magestirium, though often these teachings are pastorial/disciplinary and not doctrinal/dogmatic and subject tochange .






The first sentece is the actual statment on the Churches teaching.
The second is a statement of what just authority will do (though this is not directly a command), to protext human dignity given certian circumstances. It however, does not give an actual directive,,as it does not give any defintion or instruction of what "sufficient to defend and protect means".

The Third is an opinion on how often these circumstances occur, it is niether a teaching nor a qualification of a teaching. It is a pastorial opinion, as such it should be taken seriously, but it is not obligatory that one agree ith it. One is not obliged to agree with all the pastorial opinions of Bishops.


No where does it say the death penalty is morally illicit, no where does it give an objective limitation on its use, no where does it condemn its use in any particular place. These are the ways the Church has always addressed things She condemned, She did not do them.

THe POPE has stated that Catholics may have disagreement on this issue why can you not accept the statement of the Pope,who reigns as the Vicar of Christ?
[/quote]


do you disagree with what the CCC states? the except you just posted? if you agree with it then executions should be almost non existant. other do you reject the CCC?

[Winchester]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305488595' post='2241913']
then if that's the case put all prisoners in solitary confinement. i have no problem with this. this would keep violence in prisons to a bare minimum. the problem with your scenerio above is we would have to execute the majority of people in prison today since most people are a threat to other prisoners and prison guards. that is the nature of the beast. by locking up violent offenders and putting them with other violent offenders your asking for problems. also since a male prison is all males, males feel the need to dominate and even non violent offenders become violent in prison due to the fear of being dominated by other men.

although to execute all people who are violent in prison means the execution rate would SKYROCKET. the church does not condone this.
[/quote]
What are the percentages?

[havok579257]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305488987' post='2241917']
What are the percentages?
[/quote]

from wikapedia:

From 2000 to 2008, the state prison population increased by 159,200 prisoners, and violent offenders accounted for 60% of this increase.


this is from drugwarfacts .org

Number of sentenced prisoners in federal prison by most serious offense
Offense 2000 2008 2009 Share 2009 % Chg 2000-2009
TOTAL 131,739 182,333 187,886 100.0% +42.6%
Violent 13,740 15,483 14,773 7.9% +7.5%
Property 10,135 11,080 10,913 5.8% +7.7%
Drug 74,276 95,079 95,205 50.7% +28.2%
Public-order 32,325 59,298 65,678 35.0% +103.2%
Other/unspecified 1,263 1,394 1,317 0.7% +4.3%



- Violent = homicide, robbery, murder, and manslaughter (negligent and non-negligent).
- Property = burglary, fraud, etc.
- Public Order = immigration, weapons, etc.


Source: West, Heather C.; Sabol, William J.; and Greenman, Sarah J., "Prisoners in 2009," Bureau of Justice Statistics, (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 2010), NCJ 231675, Appendix Table 18, p. 33. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p09.pdf



so if today we JUST executed the violent offenders we and didn't even count the non violent offenders who are violent in prison we would need to execute almost 15,000 people. for some reason i don't think the church we be ok with executing almost 15,000 people and that's not even counting non violent offenders who are violent in prison.

[Winchester]

I didn't say execute all violent offenders. I mentioned any who continue to be a threat. Not a possible threat, not a probable threat. A threat.


Thank you for providing everything but the numbers relative to your claims.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305488855' post='2241916']
do you disagree with what the CCC states? the except you just posted? if you agree with it then executions should be almost non existant. other do you reject the CCC?
[/quote]

I agree wit hte teaching of the Church, which I have specificly identified above.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305490815' post='2241926']
I didn't say execute all violent offenders. I mentioned any who continue to be a threat. Not a possible threat, not a probable threat. A threat.


Thank you for providing everything but the numbers relative to your claims.
[/quote]


give me some time and i will pull up those numbers, i misunderstood your point.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305493059' post='2241936']
I agree wit hte teaching of the Church, which I have specificly identified above.
[/quote]


you used something from the ccc in your post. so, do you argee with the ccc on the death penalty? yes or no?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305506136' post='2242053']
you used something from the ccc in your post. so, do you argee with the ccc on the death penalty? yes or no?
[/quote]



I agree with the teaching ofthe Church as stated in the CCC, I do not agree with the pastorial opinion which accompanies it.


Further the Pope says I do not have to agree with it.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Don John of Austria