Poll: Are You Pro Choice Or Pro Life?

[track2004]

Aren't we called to give people second (umpteen) chances. Wouldn't the death penalty fly in the face of this? I mean I'm far from innocent, but I sure think that you should let me live despite that. Granted I haven't killed anyone else, but if we kill people for that why not kill people for felonies then, you know, just off the entire criminal element. We have jails and a penal system that is sufficient for keeping people in jail their whole lives. It is also CHEAPER to keep them alive than it is to kill em.

I was taught in Catholic School or Youth Group that the Church disagrees with the Death Penalty.

[Didymus]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1134661' date='Dec 4 2006, 09:58 AM']
No, no you're not. By definition, someone who is pro life is against the death penalty. You cannot be for and against it at the same time. There is a definite linguistic distinction.

I thought you couldn't be Catholic and for the death penalty anyway.
[/quote]

Read what Thomas has to say in the Summa. Capital Punishment in some cases is pro-life, because you are defending the lives of the innocent by ridding the "body" of the harmful part.

A person who would receive the death sentence should be one who is irreconcilably dangerous to the saftey and well-being of others. This sounds pro-life to me. Although the death penalty is avoidable in many places today due to technology, the Church, which is the most pro-life institution in the history of mankind, teaches that capital punishment is necessary in some cases.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I only support the death penalty in rare cases where it is the only way to protect the populace. I can't really think of an example in the US where I would say it is justified, and I believe John Paul II said there may not be any cases where it is so. Such cases would likely be in a nation with little ability to hold proven criminals securely or something like that.

I respect differing positions on the death penalty of fellow Catholics, as there is a clear indication from tradition that it is not inherently wrong.

[Farsight one]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1134664' date='Dec 4 2006, 10:00 AM']
wrong again. Almost every Catholic I know is firmly pro-life and pro-capital punishment. THere is a BIG difference between murder of innocents and the legitimate application of capital punishment.
[/quote] So there's no difference between pro-life and anti-abortion? Like I said before, its a fact that is lost on most people. This has only been drilled into my head for the last ten years and I've only looked it up several times over. Whatever.


[quote name='Didymus' post='1134679' date='Dec 4 2006, 10:39 AM']
A person who would receive the death sentence should be one who is irreconcilably dangerous to the saftey and well-being of others. This sounds pro-life to me. Although the death penalty is avoidable in many places today due to technology, the Church, which is the most pro-life institution in the history of mankind, teaches that capital punishment is necessary in some cases.
[/quote]Yeah, I understand that, but that's exactly what gets me. If someone is in jail for murder, then the only way they could be "irreconcilably dangerous to the saftey and well-being of others" is if they have a chance to harm other inmates, or the uncanny ability to escape. However, this is easily remedied by solitary confinement. Almost literally lock him up and throw away the key. Check for tunnels every now and then and you're fine. Under the current prison system, yes people can escape and kill again, but the prison system is what needs fixing in my eyes.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]Almost every Catholic I know is firmly pro-life and pro-capital punishment.[/quote]

That could just depend on where you live. I don't know a single British Catholic who supports capital punishment. In fact, the only Catholics I know who do support it are Americans. I think people in Britain are less likely to agree with the death penalty because it hasn't been a part of our justice system for nearly forty years.

The widely-publicised execution of an innocent man was the trigger for the death penalty's abolition in Britain, although objection to it had been rising for a long time. People do get wrongly convicted, and that's worrying. I think of people who were imprisoned for murders they didn't commit and later released on the production of fresh evidence in their favour. In the days before the death penalty was abolished the corpse of the newly vindicated person would be dug up and reinterred in consecrated ground. Having your remains put in a proper graveyard doesn't make up for having your life terminated when you were innocent in the first place.

[pcabibi]

yea I'm actually vehemently against the death penalty.... and I'm pro choice.

[Winchester]

If one denies the humanity of the unborn, then it only makes sense, I suppose.

Of course, on what grounds do you deny this humanity?

[track2004]

For a long time an embroy is a mass of cells that has no hope of survival outside the woman's body. Also convention... I mean we don't have funerals for spontaneous (natural) abortions, the unborn aren't heirs (and don't share the rights we do by law). If there is a miscarriage then we obviously mourn, but those usually happen late in the pregnancy when the child would be viable. There are other arguments that would make all mine moot, but these are some of the common arguments that abortions (espically early in the gestation) are okay because the embroy isn't human.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

Track, the viability argument is extremely weak. By that definition, people with severe disabilities (who can't cope without a great deal of care, and who therefore aren't 'viable') should be euthanised. Most people would agree that this idea is abhorrent - although some doctors in Britain are pushing for the right to be able to kill sick babies at birth. They argue that if this kind of infanticide were made legal, parents would be more likely to 'take a chance' (I quote) on having a child they knew would be disabled if they knew that they would be able to make a decision after inspecting the goods. This would, and again I quote, improve 'the management options available to the sickest newborns."

I see no difference between that and abortion. In Britain it is perfectly legitimate to abort a disabled baby right up until the point of birth - the tacit assumption being that the life of a disabled person isn't going to be worth much. Out of the womb, that's called discrimination. I don't see why it should be any different inside the womb as well. The irony of the discrimination against disabled babies is that even pro-choicers clearly believe that the 'normal' child is worth more...which implies that they are conceding, if not openly, that the 'normal' foetus has rights that they must protect. In which case, they are undermining their own argument - how can they abort healthy foeti if they are using these foeti as a yardstick against which to measure the rights of disabled babies?

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1134661' date='Dec 4 2006, 10:58 AM']I thought you couldn't be Catholic and for the death penalty anyway.
[/quote]
This seems to be a novel idea that has surfaced in the last 40 or so years. Historically Catholicism has always supported legitimate capital punishment.

[quote name='track2004' post='1135052' date='Dec 4 2006, 06:59 PM']the unborn aren't heirs (and don't share the rights we do by law).
[/quote]

Actually this is not true, and one of the big contradictions of American law. Here's just one reference that I can think of for now, from a paper I wrote on the subject:

“. . . unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem” (Roe v. Wade 1973)

[Mary EJ]

I'm afraid I'm not much of a debator, but... Who here has held a new born?

THEY'RE SO PERFECT!!!

Everything is there, and the potential for that beauty was always there.

I get so sad thinking about all thoses moments that are gone forever, once that baby is gone.

[Socrates]

[quote name='track2004' post='1135052' date='Dec 4 2006, 06:59 PM']
For a long time an embroy is a mass of cells that has no hope of survival outside the woman's body. Also convention... I mean we don't have funerals for spontaneous (natural) abortions, the unborn aren't heirs (and don't share the rights we do by law). If there is a miscarriage then we obviously mourn, but those usually happen late in the pregnancy when the child would be viable. There are other arguments that would make all mine moot, but these are some of the common arguments that abortions (espically early in the gestation) are okay because the embroy isn't human.
[/quote]
If an embryo of a human being isn't human, then what is it?

[Kosh]

There ya go, princess. Good point.

[cmotherofpirl]

Its certainly not a dog cat or tree.
Its not gonna spontaneously mutate into a new species. It is human from conception til death.

Calling it something else just makes it easier to murder.

[pcabibi]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1135243' date='Dec 4 2006, 11:21 PM']
Its certainly not a dog cat or tree.
Its not gonna spontaneously mutate into a new species. It is human from conception til death.

Calling it something else just makes it easier to murder.
[/quote]

Murder - Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder.


So would you say abortion is first or 2nd degree murder? and who should face life in prison as a result? the doctor, the mother, or both?