Abortion vs. Death Penalty

[Guest alberic]

This has troubled me about the pro-life movement....not enough attention is given to the death penalty. I am often confused with adamant pro-lifers (our President, for example) who fully support the death penalty. It's as if they are pro-life, but only under certain conditions. I don't buy the reasoning of the criminal mind/choice versus the innocence of the child. Life is life.....both criminal and child are created in God's image.

The Church is against the death penalty, but I believe there is some wiggle room allowed under certain circumstances. Isn't taking a life the same, no matter what the circumstances? Curious about this........

[argent_paladin]

You are coming from a consequentialist standpoint. You seem to imply that the only valid moral criteria is the result of the action. That is, since abortion and execution both result in death, they are both equal and wrong. However, you should consider your position again.
What about accidental death. What if I hit someone in my car, someone who is high on drugs and runs into traffic? How is that different than if I deliberately drive over that same person? Well, the difference is in intentions, so intentions matter.

Further, what if we imprison a guilty person for 25 years for rape? That seems to be just. But what if we imprison an innocent person for 25 years? That would be unjust. So, it seems, the objective guilt or innocence of the person also matters.

Clearly, then, abortion and capital punishment are two different species of action, differing in intention and matter.
The Church can be against rape and for the marital act, even though, physically and biologically speaking, the acts are identical. That is because the identity of the agents, the circumstances and the intentions all are critical when examining whether an act is moral or not.

Also, you could easily go the other way by saying that NFP and contraception both have the same result, so contraception is ok. Or that letting grandma die and depriving her of food amount to the same thing because the outcome is the same could lead one to conclude that active euthenasia is ok.
Even more, lethal self-defense (or defense of another) also results in a death, but would you say that all soldiers and those who choose to defend the lives of others are murders? What about those who die in an attempted rescue, such as the FDNY on 9/11. They ended up dying, so wasn't that the equivalent of suicide? So are they in hell?
Of course not. They had no intention of committing suicide and it was their job to risk their lives for the common good. But, under identical circumstances, if I were feeling depressed and ran into a burning, collapsing skyscraper, I might indeed by committing an immoral act. Same situation, different agent, different moral act.

[Carolou]

I don't think that if someone commits suicide they're going to go to hell, necessarily.

Also, sadly...I do consider people that go to war and kill others to be murderers. Of course I believe that they can realize their actions and be forgiven by God, though.

I do think there is a difference between abortion and the death penalty. I am strongly against both, though. Although some argue that the murderer basically commiting suicide when he killed the other people and they may think it's right for him to then be killed for it...if he has confessed and God's forgiven him, his soul is just as pure as the innocent baby that will be killed in abortion.

I think it's hard to look at it the same sometimes, though... Because a baby has done nothing to deserve to be killed. Now a murderer perhaps has, although(I believe) it isn't for us people to decide that he should then be put to death for his actions. I believe only God should be the cause of people to die, not other people.

Both situations are very sad. They both show such a huge lack of compassion and love...also a lack of forgiveness. I don't believe either is what God wants us to be doing.

And yeah, there are other differences and everything but basically my point is that I believe they're both wrong.

[Guest alberic]

I am unsure if "intention and matter" are all that different in the abortion/death penalty argument. The intent is to end life in both circumstances, in a deliberate and calculated act by another human being. While the "matter" of the two are different, that may be irrelevant.

The discussion is not about death or suicide, or being hit by a car, it is about one or more human beings deciding to kill another human being. That happens in abortion and that happens in execution. We are not to judge others, so that comment from Jesus immediately condemns the idea of capital punishment. The intent in both situations is the same - ending life. That is much different than accidental or heroic deaths. All I would like to see is the pro-life movement be more active in the anti-execution area.

Thanks for your comments.

[Myles Domini]

Jesus doesn't say not to give Caesar what Caesar is due and indeed both he and the NT elsewhere (the Epistles state clearly) that Caesar has the power to put criminals to death. There is no intrinsic evil in capital punishment and the Church is not against capital punishment. It is against its use where neccessity is lacking and other forms of correction will not suffice for convicted criminals. There have been a few long threads about this lately if you flick through the debate table pages I'm sure you'll come across them quite quickly.

INXC
Myles

[cmotherofpirl]

Abortion is the murder of an innocent human being, the death penalty is an execution conducted of a presumably guilty person by the state. The first is never acceptable, the second is.

[Aloysius]

Carolou, your position that people that go to war and kill are murderers is at odds with Catholic teaching and thus in error.
The teaching of the Church, and thus the teaching of Christ (who commanded His apostles to own swords for self defence and the defence of the innocent) is what the Catechism teaches.
The Catechism:
[quote]2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

    If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility. [/quote]

[Carolou]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 22 2005, 09:28 AM']Carolou, your position that people that go to war and kill are murderers is at odds with Catholic teaching and thus in error.
The teaching of the Church, and thus the teaching of Christ (who commanded His apostles to own swords for self defence and the defence of the innocent) is what the Catechism teaches.
The Catechism:
[right][snapback]833625[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

thanks.

I'd be very careful about thinking war is for protecting innocent....or which side is infact more innocent. Might not be the U.S.

I know that it may say it's okay at times, but I just don't like killing. if people didn't have the option of killing each other things would be real different. Well, I'm sorry but maybe I'm wrong but I just can't help but thinking it's still murder. Atleast in most wars, because most wars don't have to happen...and using an excuse of protecting innocent is just unbelievable.

[philothea]

[quote name='Myles' date='Dec 22 2005, 07:29 AM']Jesus doesn't say not to give Caesar what Caesar is due and indeed both he and the NT elsewhere (the Epistles state clearly) that Caesar has the power to put criminals to death. There is no intrinsic evil in capital punishment and the Church is not against capital punishment. It is against its use where neccessity is lacking and other forms of correction will not suffice for convicted criminals. There have been a few long threads about this lately if you flick through the debate table pages I'm sure you'll come across them quite quickly.
[right][snapback]833544[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I do wonder if the Church has any stance about executing innocent people... since the USA seems to at least attempt that with disturbing frequency.

[argent_paladin]

carolou,
you offer scant evidence for your points. I would be happy to show you that there is indeed strong reason to belive that many wars have been fought for just reason and in an appropriate manner.
And your statement that if there were no option to kill the world would be different is simply nonsense. OF course it would be different, but so would it be different if we were all angels, or if there had been no fall, or if we were immortal, etc, etc. The point is that we live in this fallen but redeemed world, not some fantasy land.
Sometimes agape (divine love) compels us to lay down our lives for our neighbor. We must protect the common good, sometimes with potentially deadly force. It is grave error to say that killing in war or capital punishment is intrinsically immoral.
And to get back to the first point, the intention of abortion and capital punishment are quite different (as are the intentions of a solder). It is immoral to directly simply intend to kill another. But, one may do so indirectly, that is if it is the only way to accomplish a moral act, such as the protection of society. Indeed the act of an executioner and a solder are identical in that they are justified by the role of government to protect the peace and order of society. If death can be avoided without endangering the peace, then it must be. A soldier doesn't want to simply kill an enemy soldier. If there were a surer way to victory, then he would take it. The same with an executioner.
Also, if you believe that a soldier is equivalent to a murderer, then why get upset at the Nazis, more than the Allies, since they are both equally murderers? Why get upset at soldiers who massacre civilians, or women and children? No, we well know the difference between a massacre and a battle, between a soldier killing another soldier and between a murderer murdering his victim. So would you say that Americans in Vietnam acted in exactly the same way when they killed enemy soldiers as when they killed civilians in Mai Lay? Do you deny any civilian/soldier distinction?

[Carolou]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Dec 22 2005, 06:37 PM']carolou,
you offer scant evidence for your points. I would be happy to show you that there is indeed strong reason to belive that many wars have been fought for just reason and in an appropriate manner.
And your statement that if there were no option to kill the world would be different is simply nonsense. OF course it would be different, but so would it be different if we were all angels, or if there had been no fall, or if we were immortal, etc, etc. The point is that we live in this fallen but redeemed world, not some fantasy land.
Sometimes agape (divine love) compels us to lay down our lives for our neighbor. We must protect the common good, sometimes with potentially deadly force. It is grave error to say that killing in war or capital punishment is intrinsically immoral.
And to get back to the first point, the intention of abortion and capital punishment are quite different (as are the intentions of a solder). It is immoral to directly simply intend to kill another. But, one may do so indirectly, that is if it is the only way to accomplish a moral act, such as the protection of society. Indeed the act of an executioner and a solder are identical in that they are justified by the role of government to protect the peace and order of society. If death can be avoided without endangering the peace, then it must be. A soldier doesn't want to simply kill an enemy soldier. If there were a surer way to victory, then he would take it. The same with an executioner.
Also, if you believe that a soldier is equivalent to a murderer, then why get upset at the Nazis, more than the Allies, since they are both equally murderers? Why get upset at soldiers who massacre civilians, or women and children? No, we well know the difference between a massacre and a battle, between a soldier killing another soldier and between a murderer murdering his victim. So would you say that Americans in Vietnam acted in exactly the same way when they killed enemy soldiers as when they killed civilians in Mai Lay? Do you deny any civilian/soldier distinction?
[right][snapback]834111[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I believe that soldiers, from any country..are still people. In my opinion, we are all called to love others as we love ourselves, to love our enemys, and to turn the other cheek. To seperate soldiers from civilians, I will not do. Because both are people, who God loves and wants us to love and forgive.

As far as your divine love to lay down your life for your neighbor. I would be very careful to not love other people more than you love God. I also think there is a big difference between laying down your life for someone else, out of love...than to kill another person because you think it will protect another person that you seem to care about.

I actually said in my original post that there was differences between abortion and the death penalty...so, I really don't know why you're trying to tell me and act like I said that there wasn't. I did say I'm against both, though.

As far as how I said it'd be different if people didn't have the option to kill...that was more of a stopped sentance. I was going to put that it'd probably be a different better place. But, then I thought about it more and didn't want to put that. I should have taken it all out of there, sorry.

I don't believe we live in a "fantasy land", as you like to put it....and because of that I feel even stronger that killing is NEVER what we should be doing. I feel even more that I have to try with all my heart to help people see Gods love and forgiveness.

Also, I know that it is not my place to get more upset or upset at all at someone who has murdered...I don't care what the situation was that they killed someone or people in. I am here to help lead others to God, so that they may be forgiven and know His love.

I just want to say that I simply feel all killing is wrong. Taking another humans life(on purpose), I believe, isn't what God wants us to be doing here. I am passionate about all people, every single one...no matter how many sins or how bad the sins are that they've commited deserve life, because God gave it to them, and He should be the one to take it away.

[KnightofChrist]

Abortion is a Holocaust... the Death Penalty in many cases is justice. Their are many Liberals that will ask a Pro-Lifer "How can you be against abortion yet for the death penalty is this not hypocrital?"

My answer to anti-lifer's is this "I will glady support the end of the Death pealty if you will join with me in the fight against the Abortion Holocaust!"

Also it must be noted there is a vast, vast diffence in a completely innocent child being murdered in this Holocaust, and a grown man whom murdered and raped a child being put to death for his crime against man and God!

The sad truth is the Death Pealty is indeed needed in some cases, men whom are a great danger to the world. The Holy Catholic Church teaches this in Her Catechism.

But in NO case is it just to murder an little innocent child guilty of nothing but being alive.

Let us worry about the Holocaust of our children now they are MOST and more important than murders and rapist!!!!

[KnightofChrist]

Carolou,

[quote]Also, sadly...I do consider people that go to war and kill others to be murderers.[/quote]

It is NOT "maybe" you are wrong, it is THAT YOU ARE WRONG, U.S. SOLDIERS AT WAR NOW, or WWII, WWI ETC... ARE NOT MURDERS!!! How can you say such wicked things against whose that risk their very lives for YOU!? Men have died so you might betray them? How dare you, you should be ashamed of yourself.

You have the mind of a child, you do not know what it means to serves ones country it is not murder! IT IS DUTY TO GOD AND COUNTRY!!!

What you "believe" goes agaisnt the will of God, one only need to listen to Holy Mother Church, or READ THE HOLY BIBLE IN FULL and not listen to "your feelings" which blind you to TRUTH!!!

You indeed would kill to defend someone you love from being murdered, do not inslut the Troops whom defend you!

GOD BLESS THE TROOPS!!! AMERICA IS ON THE SIDE OF JUSTICE!!!!

[frozencell]

[quote]I'd be very careful about thinking war is for protecting innocent....or which side is infact more innocent. Might not be the U.S.

I know that it may say it's okay at times, but I just don't like killing. if people didn't have the option of killing each other things would be real different. Well, I'm sorry but maybe I'm wrong but I just can't help but thinking it's still murder. Atleast in most wars, because most wars don't have to happen...and using an excuse of protecting innocent is just unbelievable.[/quote]

caralou...

I'm in the Air Force. I have the ever-present possibility of being deployed to Iraq or somewhere close (as do all other service members in any branch of the military). I am here to protect my country and to do a job. Which is what this is. A job. 24/7/365. I do what I am told by my superiors and commanding officers. If I don't then there are grave consequences for my inaction. If I am commanded to enter a situation where I may have to defend either myself, someone else, or my country, even to a lethal end (if required), I would not consider myself a murderer. I am doing what I am told, therefore obeying a command from God to respect and obey my "elders". If I were to go and mindlessly slaughter innocent men, women, and children, then, yes, I would be a murderer.

Also, to whm it my concern, Right to Life is also against the death penalty as they believe it is not our right as fellow humans to act as God in the giving and taking of life. If a convict is in prison he doesn't pose an immediate threat to life or limb of another.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='frozencell' date='Dec 25 2005, 01:07 AM']If a convict is in prison he doesn't pose an immediate threat to life or limb of another.
[right][snapback]835714[/snapback][/right]
shield.gif
[/quote]


Thank you for defending me "in battle" Frozencell may Almighty God bless you and all U.S. Troops!



I would say an convict in prison can INDEED be a threat, to other inmates as well as the Police that keep them there, many inmates are murdered by their "fellow" inmates and I am sure Police have also been murdered by convicted murders, (who would not have been able to kill again if they had been put to death) as well as the public if the convict breaks out and kills again which can and does happen.

Simply because one is in prison for life does not mean they are not a threat to others...