Pro-Capital Punishment / Anti-Abortion

JimiTime

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Jesus said the law and the prophets was based on loving God and neighbour, yet that same law gave a judicial command to execute murderers etc. So it seems to me, that it certainly can encompass it.

Surely it also breaches the Commandment against killing?

The commandment is thou shalt not MURDER. HUGE difference. Apart from it most definitely being 'murder' rather than 'kill', think about this: If it was 'kill', then God asked Israel to break the commandment he gave by telling them to kill the ammonites, to put murderers, blasphemers etc to death.

Certainly hand out severe and lengthy life sentences, but ending someone's life is God's call, not ours.

Its not that simple. I certainly agree that life belongs to God. All life, animal, human etc. God however makes a distinction between murder and judicial punishment. Again for the record, I don't wish to see the introduction of capital punishment, but the idea of it is definitely compatible with being Christian IMO.

PDN

My grandad (we're going a long way back here - he fought in the trenches in World War I) once told me that society started going downhill when the givernment in the UK abolished capital punishment in schools.

ISAW

MrPudding wrote: »

Murder is the top of the pile, whether it was planned, premeditated or spur of the moment is not relevent, as long as it can be shown the person intended to cause death or really serious harm, and that his act caused the death, then it is murder.

MrP

I meant planned in the sense of mens rea intention to murder. Mens rea by the way isnt listed in any laws as far as i know. Maybe the Us or Australia has written mens rea into law?

As regards the "top of the pile2 I had thought Treason was the most serious crime. it is still in the irish law. Now assuming a person guilty of treason didnt actually murder someone personally how is that different from a banker or businessman who causes the death of people or collapse of a country through business decisions?

housetypeb

Sorry cant multi-post, so...
I posted this-
I'm not really sure if you're being serious here or not, but since you also believe that abortion is akin to murder would that also mean that women who have had abortions are considered murderers and thus non persons and so should face the death penalty?

your reply is

Festus wrote: »

You do know that it is illegal in this country, Yes?

It's also illegal in this country to have sex with 13 year olds, right?

So if an Irish person goes to Spain, picks up a 13 year old and has sex with them are they paedophiles?

So your answer is ...yes.

ISAW

housetypeb wrote: »

So your answer is ...yes.

It could be but only if the unborn is a person. If it isn't a human person then how could someone be guilty of murder?

This may be unclear.

For "only" read "sufficient but not uniquely" in other words a non person can't be murdered but that isn't to say killing a person may or may not be murder as well.

MrPudding

ISAW wrote: »

I meant planned in the sense of mens rea intention to murder. Mens rea by the way isnt listed in any laws as far as i know. Maybe the Us or Australia has written mens rea into law?

Please remember that I am talking about UK law here, though I suspect it is very very similar to Irish law. First of all, I don't think planned is a useful word. When I hear it in relation to murder it makes me think of days of thinking about how to murder someone and working out all the details and then finally committing the act. The problem is, it could equally be used to describe the split second between when I decide to kill someone who has just annoyed me and the instant when I hit him with the golf club I happen to be holding. How long a period of time does there need to be between the though and the action for it to be planned? All that is required for the mens rea for murder to be satisfied is for the person to "intend to cause death or really serious harm."

Most laws, which are covered by statute will have the required mens rea and the required actus reus written in. For example, rape:

Sexual Offences Act 2003 wrote:

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if -

(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, mouth or anus of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

Subsection (a) gives us the actus reus and subsection (c) gives us the mens rea. Most statues will work in this fashion.

ISAW wrote: »

As regards the "top of the pile2 I had thought Treason was the most serious crime. it is still in the irish law.

We were talking about unlawful killing, so the top of the pile comment was merely related to that. Personally, I don't know what would actually be the top of the pile of all possible crimes. I suppose there are a couple of way of looking at it. The maximum sentence is a pretty useful place to start, that would imply that murder is likely to be considered to be very close to the top of the pile, it has the same maximum sentence, if I am not mistaken, as treason. If you did a Daily Mail reader survey of what they thought was the most serious crime, you might find it was something different...

ISAW wrote: »

Now assuming a person guilty of treason didnt actually murder someone personally how is that different from a banker or businessman who causes the death of people or collapse of a country through business decisions?

Interesting question. I am not familiar with what exactly constitutes treason, either in the UK or Ireland, but I would expect that it would be worded a little too tightly to allow the prosecution of bankers for their part in the collapse of the economy. White collar crime, almost irrespective of the damage done, tend to attract fairly light punishment.

MrP

Festus

housetypeb wrote: »

So your answer is ...yes.

You're guessing so maybe you should explain why you think the answer is yes.

housetypeb

Festus wrote: »

You're guessing so maybe you should explain why you think the answer is yes.

I wouldn't have to guess if you could actually answer yes or no to the question i asked.

ISAW

Festus wrote: »

I'm pro-choice on this.
The victim(s) should be given the right to choose if the perpetrator gets terminated.

Why?
1. They are biased.
2. If the convicted is innocent they will get executed.
3. They may just want revenge. The law isnt ther to facilitate that but for justice.
4. Criminal law isn't about doing what the victim wants. Suppose for example the victim says "ah no I think criminal charges should not happen" . It makes no difference. the state comes in and decides to prosecute or not.

Upon conviction of course, no point killing someone innocent now is there.

See 2 above. The Birmingham and guildford people could have been executed with capital punishment.

In difficult cases the State can and should intervene and order the termination for the sake of the victim, especially if they can't make their mind up.

The State HAS TO intervene in ALL criminal cases. That is part of the definition of criminal law.

Anyway, it costs a lot to house, feed, water and entertain criminals and we don't have much to be spending on them anymore.

Death row costs a lot as well.

So the sooner the better too. Definitely sooner. If there is any chance they were actually innocent they were probably guilty of something else and it will save money in the long run.

Sorry but "thought crime" and "intention" are not crimes without an act.

Relatives are so much easier to pay off.

Easier than paying off whom? and why "pay off" anyone? Bribery and corruption isn't a solution to crime.

The State needs to make laws on how they are to be terminated.
Some method that is reasonably swift and relatively painless and will ideally reduce the psychological imact on the executioner, poor thing.

Executioners are cold blooded. But if they did have problems then you are saying there is something wrong about execution.

Millstones and lakes might be an idea though.

Believe me, from personal experience, they aren't.

georgieporgy

Free education in Ireland hasn't been a complete success it would seem.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

lmaopml

It probably doesn't help answer your question Mr.Pudding, ( festive name this time of year..:) ) but yes I too have difficulty reconciling these things too..

For me, fighting for ones life or loved ones if say for instance; somebody really meant them harm - broke into your home or something and you use every means available to protect those you love, depending of course, on just how menacing the intruder - well this could be justified imo..

Take for instance the old man ( can't remember his name ) a farmer, who served time for killing a traveller not so long ago....he was at his wits end with terror..Terrible!

However, I cannot reconcile Jesus message with taking someones life who has already been sentenced and is facing incarceration and all it entails...

Ever hear the phrase, 'killing is too good for them..'?.....I think there is a lot of wisdom in that....and also, 'Throw away the key..' is a greater justice.

Heavy sentencing is always better imo than the death penalty alternative. There's nothing like 'time'...

MrPudding

lmaopml wrote: »

It probably doesn't help answer your question Mr.Pudding, ( festive name this time of year..:) ) but yes I too have difficulty reconciling these things too..

Every little helps. I find this subject fascinating, so I am glad to see any opinion.

lmaopml wrote: »

For me, fighting for ones life or loved ones if say for instance; somebody really meant them harm - broke into your home or something and you use every means available to protect those you love, depending of course, on just how menacing the intruder - well this could be justified imo..

Absolutely. Defending yourself or your loved ones is an important right.

lmaopml wrote: »

Take for instance the old man ( can't remember his name ) a farmer, who served time for killing a traveller not so long ago....he was at his wits end with terror..Terrible!

I remember this guy. Not sure if it is such a good example... He did reload once or twice...:eek:

lmaopml wrote: »

However, I cannot reconcile Jesus message with taking someones life who has already been sentenced and is facing incarceration and all it entails...

Quite. I obviously don't believe in god, and by extension heaven, hell and everything that comes with it. I can't reconcile capital punishment with being part of a civilised society, let alone with the message of Jesus.

lmaopml wrote: »

Ever hear the phrase, 'killing is too good for them..'?.....I think there is a lot of wisdom in that....and also, 'Throw away the key..' is a greater justice.

Heavy sentencing is always better imo than the death penalty alternative. There's nothing like 'time'...

Well, this is the other side of it. Personally I think that spending the rest of one's life in prison is a much harsher sentence than death. To spend every day knowing that you will never see the outside of the prison you are in, will never get to hang out with your friends or family is a much harsher punishment than death. If sentenced to death you will have the period when you are thinking about it, and it will not be fun. But then it is nothingness. No more suffering.

If you believ ein hell then presumably someone that has been sentenced to death, assuming he was correctly sentenced that is, has a fairly good chance of going to hell I would imagine. So perhaps that is a reason to kill him, to get him to hell earlier? But that doesn't really make sense either. If he is going to be in hell for eternity is 50 years really going to make that much difference to the punishment...?

I think it is the mark of a truly civilised society to stand up and say they will not put to death even the worst of its citizens.

MrP

PDN

Interestingly enough, in the early years of the Church, it appears that Christians were forbidden to take human life under any circumstances - this was taught by early Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Origen.

According to Justin Martyr, Christians were forbidden to serve as soldiers (who might obviously have to kill in warfare) or as civil magistrates (who might have to implement capital punishment). Indeed, he refers to soldiers who converted to Christianity and, as a result, left the army (thereby incurring the death penalty - Romans did not take kindly to soldiers deserting their posts).

Later this stance was softened somewhat so that soldiers could remain in the army, so long as it was in a non-combatant role.

Later still, there was a distinction made between those who were already soldiers at the time of their conversion (who were permitted to be church members and to remain in the military until their contracts expired) and those who joined the army when already Christians (who were excommunicated). However, no such distinction was made for civil magistrates - they were not to be received as church members until they resigned their posts. This indicates that, for the first 200 years of Christianity, the taking of human life by capital punishment was considered to be no different from murder.

MrPudding

PDN wrote: »

Interestingly enough, in the early years of the Church, it appears that Christians were forbidden to take human life under any circumstances - this was taught by early Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Origen.

According to Justin Martyr, Christians were forbidden to serve as soldiers (who might obviously have to kill in warfare) or as civil magistrates (who might have to implement capital punishment). Indeed, he refers to soldiers who converted to Christianity and, as a result, left the army (thereby incurring the death penalty - Romans did not take kindly to soldiers deserting their posts).

Later this stance was softened somewhat so that soldiers could remain in the army, so long as it was in a non-combatant role.

Later still, there was a distinction made between those who were already soldiers at the time of their conversion (who were permitted to be church members and to remain in the military until their contracts expired) and those who joined the army when already Christians (who were excommunicated). However, no such distinction was made for civil magistrates - they were not to be received as church members until they resigned their posts. This indicates that, for the first 200 years of Christianity, the taking of human life by capital punishment was considered to be no different from murder.

Interesting. Do you knwo what brought about the change in stance and when that happened?

MrP

PDN

MrPudding wrote: »

Interesting. Do you knwo what brought about the change in stance and when that happened?

MrP

It's probable that, in times of persecution, some believers wanted to demonstrate that they were not a threat to the State. Therefore they would stress their patriotic credentials and willingness to support the governmental authorities.

We do know that when the Church/State merger took place under Constantine then it became common for Christians to fight in wars and, as magistrates, to enforce the death penalty.

Then theologians like Augustine developed a theological rationale for war (the Just War Theory) and for judicial violence (not just executing murderers, but sanctioning torture and execution of heretics).

demolitionman

Pro Life:
I believe embryology is a truly amazing subject, and only after studying it can one really appreciate how amazing life is and how sacred it is. The amount of stuff that can and does go wrong make it a miracle that any of us are here today, and we really should be thankful of how lucky we are to be born healthy. I think there's some statistic of like 50 percent of pregnancies being miscarried without the mother ever even knowing she was carrying.
Through studying embryology I have a greater appreciation for life, and I dont feel comfortable with the idea of abortion.
Although i still think in certain circumstances it is acceptable, such as rape victims - it would be unfair for them to have to walk around with a constant reminder of the trauma they experienced. However, too often abortion is used as a form of contraceptive.

Pro capital punishment:
Under certain circumstances I think this is acceptable, usually just in the case of murder. If someone is willingly able to take someone else's life, then they themselves should be subject to the same. For me this goes on a case by case basis, but for the most part i dont have a problem with it, and would prefer if it was enforced more than it is.

PDN

Can we keep this on topic please? I have had to delete three off-topic posts.

The thread is to discuss the respective views of Christians on abortion and capital punishment - not to rehash yet again the pro and anti arguments.

crucamim

I am very much in favour of capital punishment - especially for financially motivated crime. Drug-trafficking, car-stealing, kid-napping burgulary, armed robbery, people trafficking, poteen making, fraud, illegal immigration. And not just financially motivated crime - rape, drunken driving.

What about murder? If financially motivated, yes. Otherwise it would depend on the circumstances. I know a man who was convicted of murdering his wife. He should have been given a medal for out-standing service to humanity. He was sentenced to two years jail and the judge expressed sympathy for his circumstances.

I think that when a person is convicted of a crime, he should not be given the chance to commit another crime. Nor should taxpayers' money be wasted keeping him in prison. The most secure place and the cheapest place to keep a criminal is in a grave.

I cannot understand how people can in one breath oppose capital punishment and in the next breath support abortion. After all, an unborn baby is always completly innocent. Nevrtheless, I am not dogmatic about abortion other than to state that it is a subject which should be left to women to decide -- and only women. And I say that as a male chauvinistic pig - and proud of it.

Morbert

crucamim wrote: »

I am very much in favour of capital punishment - especially for financially motivated crime. Drug-trafficking, car-stealing, kid-napping burgulary, armed robbery, people trafficking, poteen making, fraud, illegal immigration. And not just financially motivated crime - rape, drunken driving.

What about murder? If financially motivated, yes. Otherwise it would depend on the circumstances. I know a man who was convicted of murdering his wife. He should have been given a medal for out-standing service to humanity. He was sentenced to two years jail and the judge expressed sympathy for his circumstances.

I think that when a person is convicted of a crime, he should not be given the chance to commit another crime. Nor should taxpayers' money be wasted keeping him in prison. The most secure place and the cheapest place to keep a criminal is in a grave.

I've never seen anyone classify the manufacture of poteen as a capital offence, while classifying violence against women as a service to humanity. You are either being sarcastic, or a little bit scary.

MrPudding

crucamim wrote: »

I am very much in favour of capital punishment - especially for financially motivated crime. Drug-trafficking, car-stealing, kid-napping burgulary, armed robbery, people trafficking, poteen making, fraud, illegal immigration. And not just financially motivated crime - rape, drunken driving.

Wow. Generally people only advocate capital punishment for "offences against the person." You really are quite scary. A number of your "capital crimes" are generally considered to be very far dounw the list of serious offences.

crucamim wrote: »

What about murder? If financially motivated, yes. Otherwise it would depend on the circumstances. I know a man who was convicted of murdering his wife. He should have been given a medal for out-standing service to humanity. He was sentenced to two years jail and the judge expressed sympathy for his circumstances.

What is the big deal about financially motivated?

I think that when a person is convicted of a crime, he should not be given the chance to commit another crime. Nor should taxpayers' money be wasted keeping him in prison. The most secure place and the cheapest place to keep a criminal is in a grave. Are you sure he was convicted of murder?

crucamim wrote: »

I cannot understand how people can in one breath oppose capital punishment and in the next breath support abortion. After all, an unborn baby is always completly innocent.

Not it isn't it is conceived with original sin and is a sinner by nature, is that not the case?

MrP

georgieporgy

MrPudding wrote: »

Not it isn't it is conceived with original sin and is a sinner by nature, is that not the case?

MrP

Your statement is correct except for the first three words. One is not guilty of Original Sin. We inherit it (like a white man inherits his parent's white skin).

Original Sin results in our being born with defects such as poor reasoning power, weakened will , memory, and intellect. So we have difficulty learning and making decisions, and keeping/acting on decisions. Who am I telling......I'm sure you know all about that!

The unborn and newborn baby remains innocent of actual sin till he decides to commit one for himself.

davebloggs

I would be both against abortion and capital punishment for different reasons.
Abortion is the ending of a life for convenience, it's not convenient for me to hold the child to term, I have dates to attend etc , preganancy is in no shape or form the end of the world in the western world these days, if you don't want to keep the child then let the state take care of her/him.

As regards capital punishment I believe humans are not capable of creating a perfect system and I would not see one innocent person die on behalf of one million guilty.

If a system puts one innocent man to death then it may as well be the holocaust.

Stuffy

demolitionman wrote: »

Pro Life:
I believe embryology is a truly amazing subject, and only after studying it can one really appreciate how amazing life is and how sacred it is. The amount of stuff that can and does go wrong make it a miracle that any of us are here today, and we really should be thankful of how lucky we are to be born healthy. I think there's some statistic of like 50 percent of pregnancies being miscarried without the mother ever even knowing she was carrying.
Through studying embryology I have a greater appreciation for life, and I dont feel comfortable with the idea of abortion.
Although i still think in certain circumstances it is acceptable, such as rape victims - it would be unfair for them to have to walk around with a constant reminder of the trauma they experienced. However, too often abortion is used as a form of contraceptive.

Pro capital punishment:
Under certain circumstances I think this is acceptable, usually just in the case of murder. If someone is willingly able to take someone else's life, then they themselves should be subject to the same. For me this goes on a case by case basis, but for the most part i dont have a problem with it, and would prefer if it was enforced more than it is.

Ya thats true I also heard that a giraffe can actually mate with a deer and carry the deer fetus but during the extraction of the baby it actually turns into a wild flourescent giraffe. I'll try to get the source but these embreo yokes are truly amazing.

PDN

As Orrin Hatch, Republican senator for Utah once said, “Capital punishment is our society's recognition of the sanctity of human life.”

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

What was murder or not murder often comes down to simply a matter of opinion.

Opinion?

A nonsensical statement given your example was based on circumstance.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

As Orrin Hatch, Republican senator for Utah once said, “Capital punishment is our society's recognition of the sanctity of human life.”

Who said Americans don't get irony

Festus

housetypeb wrote: »

I wouldn't have to guess if you could actually answer yes or no to the question i asked.

I could have but then it wouldn't be a discussion.

So you think those who abide by the law in Spain should be tried and convicted when they return to Ireland. Interesting. What about those who had sex with 13 year olds in Spain and then come here on holiday? Do you want them locked up too?

Another question. Say a death row convict escapes from American and rocks up in Ireland. Capital Punishment is essentially off the books here but we have an extradition treaty with the US. Should they be sent back to certain death?

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Now, I'm not sure what supernatural elements you believe are in play, but from a physical point of view these people were not flipping between "human" and "not human" as people in the media and wider world were debating whether or not it was or wasn't murder, one minute they are humans when people say it was lawful killing, the next they are inhuman monsters when people say no it was murder.

You do have a tendency not to read posts before replying or more likely reading posts and then replying to what you thought you read or more likely still imposing your interpretation so you can reply with something that suits your agenda.

In case you missed it. Murderers are not persons. They are still human acccording to their DNA but that's all that makes them human. By commiting murderer they have demostrated that they are not like other people and therefore and not persons. As they are no longer persons by normal standards their lives are no longer protected by law and to protect other persons from bodily harm they need to be terminated with all due prejudice, preferably of the extreme variety.

marty1985

PDN wrote: »

As Orrin Hatch, Republican senator for Utah once said, “Capital punishment is our society's recognition of the sanctity of human life.”

Someone else famous once said "I was in prison and you visited me."

God did not create anyone for you to decide he must die, no matter what sins he committed. You don't need to tell God about the sanctity of human life. He saw the criminal before he was born. Maybe held him. Maybe counted the hairs on his head. Maybe breathed life into him. Nobody else should take that away. God is the king. He is the judge. You kill the criminal. But you will explain your case before God and God will defend the criminal who couldn't defend himself.

Show some compassion and compassion
will be showed to you.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Opinion?

A nonsensical statement given your example was based on circumstance.

I thought that was blindingly obvious, but apparently not. The example was based on whether you held the opinion that these soldiers acted legally, which goes to an assessment of the basic rules of engagement right up to whether you consider the Iraq war a legal war. That opinion will effect whether you consider what they did murder or not. Your idea that murders are some how fundamentally different than other people is ridiculous since whether something was or wasn't a murder comes down to opinion which has no ability to alter someones physical make up.

Festus wrote: »

In case you missed it. Murderers are not persons. They are still human acccording to their DNA but that's all that makes them human. By commiting murderer they have demostrated that they are not like other people and therefore and not persons. As they are no longer persons by normal standards their lives are no longer protected by law and to protect other persons from bodily harm they need to be terminated with all due prejudice, preferably of the extreme variety.

My Iraq example highlights (again) how utterly nonsensical this position is.

In the eyes of some people the Iraq incedent was murder. In the eyes of others it was a legal excerise in law.

So what, when these soldiers are in America they are persons, like other people, but when they travel to say Iran they suddenly morph into these non-persons of yours? Of course not, they are they are exactly the same, the only thing that changes is the views of what they did.

Silly in the extreme. :rolleyes:

housetypeb

Festus wrote: »

I could have but then it wouldn't be a discussion.

So you think those who abide by the law in Spain should be tried and convicted when they return to Ireland. Interesting. What about those who had sex with 13 year olds in Spain and then come here on holiday? Do you want them locked up too?

Another question. Say a death row convict escapes from American and rocks up in Ireland. Capital Punishment is essentially off the books here but we have an extradition treaty with the US. Should they be sent back to certain death?

Funny-you seem to expect either yes or no to your questions while refusing to answer yes or no to any question you're asked.
And your obsessive example of sex with 13 year olds in multiple posts is beginning to get creepy.

Fanny Cradock

housetypeb wrote: »

.
And your obsessive example of sex with 13 year olds in multiple posts is beginning to get creepy.

I would strongly suggest that you refrain from making nasty insinuations.

PDN

marty1985 wrote: »

Someone else famous once said "I was in prison and you visited me."

God did not create anyone for you to decide he must die, no matter what sins he committed. You don't need to tell God about the sanctity of human life. He saw the criminal before he was born. Maybe held him. Maybe counted the hairs on his head. Maybe breathed life into him. Nobody else should take that away. God is the king. He is the judge. You kill the criminal. But you will explain your case before God and God will defend the criminal who couldn't defend himself.

Show some compassion and compassion
will be showed to you.

I guess not everybody gets irony, do they?

antiskeptic

Festus wrote:

In case you missed it. Murderers are not persons. They are still human acccording to their DNA but that's all that makes them human. By commiting murderer they have demostrated that they are not like other people and therefore and not persons. As they are no longer persons by normal standards their lives are no longer protected by law and to protect other persons from bodily harm they need to be terminated with all due prejudice, preferably of the extreme variety.

Wicknight wrote:

My Iraq example highlights (again) how utterly nonsensical this position is. In the eyes of some people the Iraq incident was murder. In the eyes of others it was a legal excerise in law. So what, when these soldiers are in America they are persons, like other people, but when they travel to say Iran they suddenly morph into these non-persons of yours? Of course not, they are they are exactly the same, the only thing that changes is the views of what they did. Silly in the extreme

Checkmate?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Checkmate?

To who?

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

To who?

You, of course. You clearly can't be both a non-person and a person at the same time. And I don't see how Festus can wriggle free without arguing in a circle.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

You, of course.

Just checking :pac::P

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Just checking :pac::P

Oh ye of little faith..

georgieporgy

antiskeptic wrote: »

You, of course. You clearly can't be both a non-person and a person at the same time. And I don't see how Festus can wriggle free without arguing in a circle.

I can see how there would be a difference, a slight one mind you. The individual's age would be different as he moves between the 2 countries and that might account for him being a person in one jurisdiction and a non person in the other. Plus, when he is in Iraq/Iran, 'we' wouldn't see him and that arguably could be used to justify non person status (legally anyway).

Surely every modern person can see that.

PS - I am personally against capital punishment but am not anti capital punishment; rather - I am pro choice. (I am a religious person but don't feel I have the right to foist my beliefs on anyone)

marty1985

PDN wrote: »

I guess not everybody gets irony, do they?

I was drunk last night and posting here. Nevermind anything I said. Haven't even read this thread yet, sorry!

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

You, of course. You clearly can't be both a non-person and a person at the same time. And I don't see how Festus can wriggle free without arguing in a circle.

That is not the argument. The argument is whether or not a human can be a person or not.

The wick argument is nonsensical as it tugs on the emptional strings of those outside the war and ignores the fact that soldiers are not murderers but trained killers. They do not make the decision to kill, that decision was made for them in boot camp. It also draws on subjective opinion which is not a factor soldiers have to deal with.

Give a person a gun, put them in a war zone and order them to kill other people with an instruction that the people that are shooting at are not persons but "the enemy" and what happens? Human instinct kicks in, they see the other people as persons and in general they shoot to miss and will continue to do so until they see their buddies being killed around them. Then the survival fight or flight instinct kicks in and with nowhere to run to they will finally shoot to kill.
The above assumes no training for those who cannot spot the obvious.
Military training now assumes the above will happen and training takes account of this so that when soldiers are dropped into a combat zone they will shoot at "the enemy" and shoot to kill. This training requires breaking down all that makes us human especially empathic responses such that empathy is only felt for friendlies and no empathy is felt for enemies.

Using a military scenario as a counter to the case of civilian murderers is not equating like with like and as such is a non argument. Put quite simply, when a US soldier has finished training it is no longer a person but a killing machine that may still be capable of commiting murder but itself and its superiors would not consider it to be murder as its capacity for independant reasoning has been reduced. It is however very capable at following orders. To some the end result of the order my be considered murder in a subjective sense but to the killing machine the end result was "mission accomplished".

Introduction of a strawman does not a checkmate make.

Festus

housetypeb wrote: »

Funny-you seem to expect either yes or no to your questions while refusing to answer yes or no to any question you're asked.
And your obsessive example of sex with 13 year olds in multiple posts is beginning to get creepy.

No. I expect an answer with a qualification - such is the nature of discussion. I also expect to be asked intelligent questions but that is by the by.

There is no obsession. It is an example of a law that in one country is different to that in ours such that what is legal over there is not legal here.

I could have used drugs in Holland or Switzerland, guns in the Czech Republic or slavery in America but I felt the examples would be beyond the audience and played to the lowest common denominator. If you think the Spanish law is creepy take it up with the Spaniards.

The question remains, should someone who has abided by or been subject to a law in another country where that law is contrary to the law in this country be subject to the force of law in this country. You obviously think they should and I would disagree. I would suggest that the difference is that some people think that the law is always moral and others think that there is no relationship between law and morality.
Some people think that while the law is subjective morality is equally subjective. Bloody idiots.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

To some the end result of the order my be considered murder in a subjective sense but to the killing machine the end result was "mission accomplished".

And? What does that have to do with the original point. They aren't murderers because they don't think they are? Is that your point?

You seem to be admitting that murder is a subjective assessment of what someone has done rather than a state that person is in. A person is judged to have murdered someone, they don't physically turn into a murderer as if that is some external state of being. Yet you continue to argue.

Do you actually understand what the word "murder" means?

It is the unlawful killing of another person (with extra notions of premeditation etc but the important bit is the "unlawful" bit.

By definition whether something is or isn't murder depends on the law at the time and what notions of law are currently judging the person.

crucamim

MrPudding wrote: »

Wow. Generally people only advocate capital punishment for "offences against the person." You really are quite scary. A number of your "capital crimes" are generally considered to be very far dounw the list of serious offences.

You have made a very correct statement. Most people in Ireland are soft on crime. That is why there is so much of it.

wolfsbane

MrPudding wrote: »

I asked this question in another thread, but with hindsight it probably did not belong there, and I am hopeful that it might warrant its own thread.

I have some difficulty when a person professes to be anti-abortion but pro-capital punishment. I am curious as to the justification for this type of stance. I understand that probably the majority of poster here would be anti both, but there are some posters here that feel that abortions are murder but capital punishment is fair game.

I understand the anti-abortion argument that the foetus is a living human being and that life is sacred and should be protected etc, so I don't think we need any more discussion about why people are anti-abortion, besides, I am sure the mods are fed up with abortion threads anyway.

I think it will interesting to discuss why the committing of a crime can be considered reason enough to suspend the rights bestowed upon conception.

My personal stance on the subject is I am pro-choice, though not a fan of abortions, and anti-capital punishment.

I am hopeful that posters that are not anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment might also offer thoughts on why someone might think like this, like Fanny did on the other thread.

MrP

Apologies for jumping in without reading all the thread. I read the first page and found JimiTime said it well.

To that I would add, the absolute difference between abortion and CP lies in the nature of each, and each case.

I mean, abortion is moral if it is to save the life of the mother - in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, for example. But if it is for social reasons, it is murder.

Likewise, CP is moral in response to murder, and other of the gravest crimes. Treason, kidnapping, child-rape, for example. But if it is to punish lesser crimes - robbery or assault, for example - then it is immoral, for it is excessive and therefore unjust.

The objection is often made that man has no right to take another man's life, even judicially for murder. That is not the Biblical position - the Bible asserts CP is exercised by the State, on God's behalf.

_________________________________________________________________
Romans 13:4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you actually understand what the word "murder" means?

It is the unlawful killing of another person (with extra notions of premeditation etc but the important bit is the "unlawful" bit.

By definition whether something is or isn't murder depends on the law at the time and what notions of law are currently judging the person.

So it's ok to kill someone who is not a person in your opinion?

Excellent, you agree with capital punishment.

Festus

wolfsbane wrote: »

I mean, abortion is moral if it is to save the life of the mother - in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, for example.

Just for clarity - it is not correct to describe treatment for ectopic pregnancy as an abortion.

An abortion kills a child in the uterus and removes that child from the womb prematurely.

Intervention for ectopic pregnancy involves removing the fallopian tube with the living child contained within it. The child will die anyway but waiting for it to die will kill the mother.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

So it's ok to kill someone who is not a person in your opinion?

Excellent, you agree with capital punishment.

People are not sentenced to death because a court decides they are not a person. They are sentenced to death as punishment for a crime. The court does not suddently discover that Oh wait a minute this human life form was never a person, sure we can kill it. For a start even if the human wasn't a person why would you automatically kill it? The person is killed under notions of punishment and justice, it is nothing to do with the classification of "person".

There is no notion of capital punishment that I'm aware of that declares that a murderer is not a person except for your own and you seem to be having a very hard time justifying that position.

lmaopml

I think it depends really on where we get the concept that 'humans' have intrinsic worth by virtue of being 'human'. Either they do or they do not - this is at the base of the arguement. Either we think so or we don't..

'Thou shalt not kill' ....is pretty clear imo.

However, when Jesus was asked about what laws are most important out of all the laws, he said love of God, and love of neighbour. Two commands that we have to weigh cover everything else that follows from that...

I cannot fathom the person who is pro-abortion pre 12 weeks but anti abortion anything after??? What's that all about? - I don't follow that reasoning. Either they are or they aren't, the rest sounds like really bad reasoning and raises more questions than answers....

As for Capital punishment. Well, it's been around a long time and lets face it, it is because humans like 'vengence' and sometimes bow to it..

I think it depends on the motive sometimes. To me all humans have 'intrinsic value' whether they are friend or foe in the sense of living with equality and justice etc. etc.

Certainly, there is a difference between protecting the innocent from real and present danger and the 'scales' are brought out - and eliminating a life for the sake of vengence once a person is already incarcerated. I'm not saying that I am above or beyond the concept of vengence..lol..in everyday normal life, but there is something within that shouts to me that it is wrong to take life.....'life' is valuable, and that's the way we measure our actions, make our laws...

'An eye for an eye'...is often quoted, ( and not always by people who give a damn for the bible in the first place ) but that's not uncommon. We live and learn. Capital punishment should imo, be a thing of the past, and something that is 'condemned' as morally wrong. I can't see a valid arguement for it.

Granted, we live in a world where 'laws' differ and as a Christian we are meant to uphold and respect those lawgivers - it doesn't mean we can't rally and shout out against injustice though...any type of injustice. Just look at the flotilla in 2010 for inspiration...there are plenty of people who speak out against unjust laws and regimes and highlight them.