Pro-Capital Punishment / Anti-Abortion

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

For a start even if the human wasn't a person why would you automatically kill it?

and your position when it comes to abortion is...?

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

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....

Not quite the topic of the thread, but the reasoning is pretty clear. The fetus does not have characteristics that later develop.

You wouldn't say I cannot fathom someone is pro-masterbation yet anti-abortion, either it is or it isn't. That is because the properties of the cell has changed due to contraception. You may not agree that the change is of significance (I don't) but it does certainly change, and have different properties after conception than before. The principle here is the same. I'm not sure about the 12 weeks, but at some point a fetus doesn't have a brain or nervous system and then it does. If that is what you consider important it would make total sense to view it more valuable after this stage.

So whether or not you agree the reasoning shouldn't be causing you trouble, I imagine you use similar reasoning yourself for why sperm is ok to kill.

lmaopml wrote: »

'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.

I think the valid argument for it is that God says it is valid to do it in the process of justice. As you say, an eye for an eye. That is from the Bible.

At least that seemed to be Wolfsbane's point, apologies if I'm misrepresenting him.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

and your position when it comes to abortion is...?

My position is that I don't automatically kill early fetuses just because I don't consider them persons.

There seems to be an underlying view through most of your posts that killing non-persons is a trivial, almost expected, action. Remind me not to let you near my dog.

Benicetomonty

Re: Capital Punishment: There are people who deserve to die. There is nobody who deserves to kill.

Re: Abortion: You're not a human til you're in my phonebook :cool:


Jokes aside, I do feel abortion is a genuine issue in that I can understand why some people are pro-life (and here I'm not speaking about psychotic bible-bashers who revel in the hypocrisy of murdering doctors who perform abortions). There are some very good good arguments made to condemn terminations, so even though I might disagree with people, I can understand where they're coming from, and maybe even come to respect their opinions.
I have no such respect for anyone who supports capital punishment. It is barbaric, out-dated and there's quite simply too much that can go wrong in any given case where it might be used.

Festus

lmaopml wrote: »

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..

This is the key to all arguments surrounding the right to kill.

The right to kill a convicted human murderer or the right to kill an innocent unborn.

If there exists a right to kill a convicted murderer then anyone can be accused of murder, tried and convicted so that human can be legally terminated. All that is required is to convince the judge or jury as appropriate.

If there exists a right to kill an unborn human then the rules that define who can be killed based on status can be extended to all humans. Euthenasia, handicap, terminal illness, usefulness to society, quality of life or wantedness are all status based determinations.

It is clear that in states or countries that allow the termination of convicted prisoners do so based on status.

Is that any different to those states and countries that allow the termination of the unborn? No. It's all about status.

It's all arbitrary.

We know where the concept that humans (or some humans) have no intrinsic value comes from.

If a right to choose to kill the unborn can exist then a right to choose to kill anyone can exist. The only determination is status.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

My position is that I don't automatically kill early fetuses just because I don't consider them persons.

In your opinion they are not persons. In my opinion murderers are not persons. What is the difference?

Wicknight wrote: »

There seems to be an underlying view through most of your posts that killing non-persons is a trivial, almost expected, action. Remind me not to let you near my dog.

Your dog has nothing to fear unless it's pro-choice and has a line on the treatment of unborn pups, or happens to be a convicted murderer.

lmaopml

Wicknight wrote: »

Not quite the topic of the thread, but the reasoning is pretty clear. The fetus does not have characteristics that later develop.

That make it more 'valuable'? In what way?

You wouldn't say I cannot fathom someone is pro-masterbation yet anti-abortion, either it is or it isn't. That is because the properties of the cell has changed due to contraception.

That is very true, although not as a result of 'contraception' as a result of being 'concieved' - at what point does the properties of a 'cell' once put in motion, and not of it's own accord, make a 'person in the making' have value to you Wicknight? Is there a limit set to disposing or no? Where's the line?

You may not agree that the change is of significance (I don't) but it does certainly change, and have different properties after conception than before.

If you 'don't' agree than what exactly is your reasoning...? It takes nine months to be a fully independent human person in the sense of full development but not co-dependency? Where is the line drawn for you?

The principle here is the same. I'm not sure about the 12 weeks, but at some point a fetus doesn't have a brain or nervous system and then it does. If that is what you consider important it would make total sense to view it more valuable after this stage.

Thanks. A beating heart and brain are developed at 12 weeks!

So whether or not you agree the reasoning shouldn't be causing you trouble, I imagine you use similar reasoning yourself for why sperm is ok to kill.

No, I have trouble with this, I don't mind admitting.... I am a Catholic and it is one of my bugbears. However, I do understand total submission ( should one believe in God ) as opposed to 'I'm in control'... This is a tough one for me, and the ultimate is to abandon oneself to God's will imo..!

I think the valid argument for it is that God says it is valid to do it in the process of justice. As you say, an eye for an eye. That is from the Bible.

Yes, that is from the bible, but it is metaphorical in relation to home and family, and the law at that time as inspirationally set - it's not meant a literal eye for an eye, it's like a 'speech' by current law makers who use metaphorical language...... Metaphorics are not uncommon ( mores the pity ) - however, the misrepresenting of same seems to be par for the course with a bible that has a veritable library of 'metaphoric', 'poetic', 'literal' etc. etc. sections....It's an 'invitation' for discovery..

'Turn the other cheek', trumps that and clarifies it, puts it in a new perspective if you like...

At least that seemed to be Wolfsbane's point, apologies if I'm misrepresenting him.

I'm sure Wolfe will clarify his own point of view. I'm quite sure he didn't invent Capital punishment though, and neither did Christianity....In fact I'd imagine collectively we are it's biggest opponents!

lmaopml

Festus wrote: »

This is the key to all arguments surrounding the right to kill.

The right to kill a convicted human murderer or the right to kill an innocent unborn.

If there exists a right to kill a convicted murderer then anyone can be accused of murder, tried and convicted so that human can be legally terminated. All that is required is to convince the judge or jury as appropriate.

If there exists a right to kill an unborn human then the rules that define who can be killed based on status can be extended to all humans. Euthenasia, handicap, terminal illness, usefulness to society, quality of life or wantedness are all status based determinations.

It is clear that in states or countries that allow the termination of convicted prisoners do so based on status.

Is that any different to those states and countries that allow the termination of the unborn? No. It's all about status.

It's all arbitrary.

We know where the concept that humans (or some humans) have no intrinsic value comes from.

If a right to choose to kill the unborn can exist then a right to choose to kill anyone can exist. The only determination is status.

'Status', for me doesn't come into the equation really Festus. Either somebody is, or is not by definition 'human' and all that we value about what it is to be 'human', and valued, and even 'why' we think we are at various stages, failures, successes etc. - flawed, a sinner, a saint - or most likely somebody in between both, who is just dealing with human law on thier journey...and wrestling with the question of what their humanity means to them...what they believe the sum of what makes them 'valuable' is...

'Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's, and render onto God that which is God's'...

There is 'Man's law' and how we value the human being and then there is God's law...and clear direction, as above post, as to how to deal with both....

Get by with the law of the land, recognise it, follow it and be mindful, but never ever let go of those two simple commandments, and speak out where we can to uphold those.... Because if they don't make sense, than 'no' law that is manmade makes any sense, since it is based on 'humans' having a value of some sort....and a redemptive nature....


There is no human worth less than another....or else there is.

lmaopml

Benicetomonty wrote: »

Jokes aside, I do feel abortion is a genuine issue in that I can understand why some people are pro-life (and here I'm not speaking about psychotic bible-bashers who revel in the hypocrisy of murdering doctors who perform abortions). There are some very good good arguments made to condemn terminations, so even though I might disagree with people, I can understand where they're coming from, and maybe even come to respect their opinions.
I have no such respect for anyone who supports capital punishment. It is barbaric, out-dated and there's quite simply too much that can go wrong in any given case where it might be used.

Jokes aside; I can appreciate that it's a difficult subject to 'appreciate' objectively or subjectively, and you are being honest with your submission above...

Welcome to the 'Christianity' forum and all it entails

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

That make it more 'valuable'? In what way?

You don't need to know in order to fathom the argument

From my point of view the fetus becomes much more valuable when it has developed a brain, since the properties of the brain are the things that give human beings value over other species, rather than the make up of our DNA, or the species we have classified ourselves.

You might think it becomes much more valuable when it has a soul at conception (ie you consider an unfertilized egg of little value but a fertilized egg huge value because you believe that is when the soul enters the body and that is what you value).

Again you don't need to agree with or even understand the logic behind what is valuable and what isn't to know that the argument is that at one point the life form doesn't have this valuable thing and is as such not valuable and then
when it does it greatly increases in value.

Discussing the ins and outs of why exactly having something X is a valuable is not relevant to understand the logic of the argument that when it has X it is valuable, and it is also rather off topic.

lmaopml wrote: »

Yes, that is from the bible, but it is metaphorical in relation to home and family, and the law at that time as inspirationally set - it's not meant a literal eye for an eye, it's like a 'speech' by current law makers who use metaphorical language...... Metaphorics are not uncommon ( mores the pity ) - however, the misrepresenting of same seems to be par for the course with a bible that has a veritable library of 'metaphoric', 'poetic', 'literal' etc. etc. sections....It's an 'invitation' for discovery..

It is a thesis on justice, that it is just to inflict similar damage done to someone as they did to someone else. So it is just to kill a murder, they will suffer in the manner that they made another suffer.

lmaopml wrote: »

'Turn the other cheek', trumps that and clarifies it, puts it in a new perspective if you like...

Well that is up to you guys to discuss.

From my position as a non-believer Jesus was preparing his subjects for an immanent apocalypse, and as such had little use for laws and legal structure. They were all going to be dead soon and facing God, and it was now to demonstrate love for all. It was only after this didn't happen that Christians had to then interpret these passages by Jesus in terms of long term legal structure, and as far as I can tell they have been doing this ever since, moving from notions of extreme pacifism such as the Quakers to concepts of just "God on our side" wars.

My point was not that either you or Wolfsbane was wrong, just that Wolfsbane was appealing to God given notions of justice (ie in the Bible) as much as anyone.

Festus

lmaopml wrote: »

'Status', for me doesn't come into the equation really Festus. Either somebody is, or is not by definition 'human' and all that we value about what it is to be 'human', and valued, and even 'why' we think we are at various stages, failures, successes etc. - flawed, a sinner, a saint - or most likely somebody in between both, who is just dealing with human law on thier journey...and wrestling with the question of what their humanity means to them...what they believe the sum of what makes them 'valuable' is...

Oh, I agree Imaopml. Either all or human or none are human.

The point is if society is prepared to accept pro-choice on the issue of abortion it must accept that no human life has value.

In an atheistic world all humans are little more than over evolved apes and therefore are animals. The atheistic world only considers what is valuable and that includes having a working brain. If the brain does not exist or ceases to function within normal parameters the host ceases to have value.
In the case of the murderer clearly their brains do not work like other humans and therefore are not human if the same criteria that are applied to allow legalized abortion or euthenasia are applied.

If a murderer declares itself to be an atheist then there is even less of an issue. It does not believe it has a soul therefore it is an animal and can be treated as such. If a dog tastes human blood it is put down. If a racehourse breaks a leg and ceases to have value it is put down. If a large cat loses the ability through age to hunt its normal game and goes after something easier like humans it is hunted down and destroyed.

As I said earlier - on the issue of CP I am PC. I would not choose it for someone who murderered me or mine as I believe all are humans but for others I would not prevent them from exercising their right as long as they don't kill anything they think is a person. A murderer is no longer a person just as any creature with no soul is an animal.

An interesting comment on BBC reportage of the Coptic massacre. One of the people their said "they are not people, they are animals" and when you see the injuries inflicted by the rusty nuts and bolts used as schrapnel it is hard not to agree. Once a human becomes an animal they are valueless.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

In your opinion they are not persons. In my opinion murderers are not persons. What is the difference?

As I said the difference is that I wouldn't automatically kill the fetus simply because I don't consider it a person.

Why are you executing the murderer? Because they killed someone or because in your opinion they are not persons?

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

If the brain ... ceases to function within normal parameters the host ceases to have value.

Nobody has said this.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

The point is if society is prepared to accept pro-choice on the issue of abortion it must accept that no human life has value.

Society already accepts such a position. We regularly cut of life support for people who are brain dead but still a live. This is not seen as murder because by virtue of being brain dead the person is considered to have already died, even if the rest of their organs are functioning.

Human life has value simply be virtue of having human DNA.

Festus wrote: »

In an atheistic world all humans are little more than over evolved apes and therefore are animals.

Your disdain for animals is really quite disgusting Festus.

Festus wrote: »

The atheistic world only considers what is valuable and that includes having a working brain. If the brain does not exist or ceases to function within normal parameters the host ceases to have value.
In the case of the murderer clearly their brains do not work like other humans and therefore are not human if the same criteria that are applied to allow legalized abortion or euthenasia are applied.

Can you detail how a murderer brains "do not work" like other humans, and why not working like other humans is a criteria for killing them?

You appreciate the difference between having a set of different brains and someone not having a brain at all?

Would you advocate killing handicapped people as well given that they have brains that are different to other humans?

Festus wrote: »

If a murderer declares itself to be an atheist then there is even less of an issue. It does not believe it has a soul therefore it is an animal and can be treated as such.

And how exactly Festus do you treat animals? Not very well by the sound of it.

georgieporgy

I wouldn't be surprised if Festus secretly eats animals.:eek:

wolfsbane

Festus wrote: »

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.

Hmm. Are you sure 'abortion' is so narrowly defined? I used the term to mean doing something that will that day end the unborn child's life. I don't see what the difference is between removing it from the fallopian tube than from the womb.

And in many abortions the child lives for some minutes/hours on the theatre trolley. It is the ending of its life that constitutes the abortion, not the bit of the body it was living in.

_________________________________________________________________
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.

wolfsbane

lmaopml said:

I'm sure Wolfe will clarify his own point of view. I'm quite sure he didn't invent Capital punishment though, and neither did Christianity....In fact I'd imagine collectively we are it's biggest opponents!

As far as I can gather, Christianity has historically had no problem supporting the execution of murderers. The Biblical case permitting it is beyond questioning.

It is a novel thing for a Christian to be anti-CP. Common enough today, but not historically or Biblically.

The Romans 13 passage shows nothing has changed for society in God's view: some crimes deserve execution. And it is not a matter of personal revenge (which would be covered by 'turn the other cheek') - it is a matter of the State fulfilling God's restraint on human wickedness. Execution of murderers did not originate with Moses' 'eye for eye, life for life', but with the universal command given to Noah after the Flood:
Genesis 9:5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.

6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.

_________________________________________________________________
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.

wolfsbane

Benicetomonty wrote: »

I have no such respect for anyone who supports capital punishment. It is barbaric, out-dated and there's quite simply too much that can go wrong in any given case where it might be used.

Hi, Benicetomonty

The only misgiving about CP I have is the weakness of a State's justice system. Innocent people do get framed by corrupt or incompetent systems. Where there is doubt, a life sentence would be more appropriate, I think.

But in cases beyond reasonable doubt, I think the risk acceptable. And we all agree on taking some risks with the welfare of the innocent - for life imprisonment is not a holiday. Many inmates end their imprisonment by suicide, so it is no light thing to inflict life imprisonment on one who is wrongly convicted.

And execution is not necessarily barbaric. Hanging, shooting, beheading can all be quick.

_________________________________________________________________
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: »

As I said the difference is that I wouldn't automatically kill the fetus simply because I don't consider it a person.

They why would you kill it?

Wicknight wrote: »

Why are you executing the murderer? Because they killed someone or because in your opinion they are not persons?

You don't read very well do you. I'm pro-choice on the matter and would not advocate it if I was the victim.
If other people what to exercise their right to kill that's up to them. All I am saying it is that it is ok as long as they believe it is not a person.

Festus

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hmm. Are you sure 'abortion' is so narrowly defined? I used the term to mean doing something that will that day end the unborn child's life. I don't see what the difference is between removing it from the fallopian tube than from the womb.

I use the term in the medical sense to mean

the premature removal of the products of conception (the embryo\foetus\baby, foetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus for the purposes of terminating the pregnancy.

wolfsbane wrote: »

And in many abortions the child lives for some minutes/hours on the theatre trolley. It is the ending of its life that constitutes the abortion, not the bit of the body it was living in.

That does happen and in some countries it can be grounds for either a murder charge or medical negligence.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Your disdain for animals is really quite disgusting Festus.

Thank you. Wait til you get to my disdain for humans who think they are souless animals.

Festus

georgieporgy wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if Festus secretly eats animals.:eek:

Why be secretive about it?

One shot.
One kill.
Food for a month and a nice leather jacket and shoes.
I find horse the best for both.

Roos not bad either. Very stretchy

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Human life has value simply be virtue of having human DNA.

Thanks Wicknight. That's all I wanted to hear.

and as unique DNA exists from conception I'm glad you agree that all humans have value from conception.

Zombrex

georgieporgy wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if Festus secretly eats animals.:eek:

The funny thing is he seems to think we all share his disdane for animals, he has regularly presented the position of an atheist such as myself as Its animal so I can kill it if I want

All rather bizarre. Nearly as bizarre as his argument that murderers are not persons because their brains are different.

Some what ironic given that he argues that a person is defined by DNA at conception, something a murderer and a non-murderer share.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Thanks Wicknight. That's all I wanted to hear.

and as unique DNA exists from conception I'm glad you agree that all humans have value from conception.

Unless they are murderers because they aren't "persons"? .... you see the problem there you have set up for yourself?

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Unless they are murderers because they aren't "persons"? .... you see the problem there you have set up for yourself?

Ehh... No!

Unless you can prove there is a "murderer" gene that can be identified in the DNA otherwise you would need to put the unborn child on trial and get a conviction. I don't agree with people having the choice to execute "potential" murderers, any more than I would agree that parents can kill thir child in the womb for having a "gay" gene or being the wrong sex or expressing any genetic anomaly, only those who by deed have proven themselves to be murderers.

The problem you now have is that by admitting that human life has value simply be virtue of having human DNA you can no longer maintain any form of a pro-choice position.

MrPudding

wolfsbane wrote: »

But in cases beyond reasonable doubt, I think the risk acceptable.

All convictions are on a "beyond reasonable doubt" basis.

MrP

wolfsbane

MrPudding wrote: »

All convictions are on a "beyond reasonable doubt" basis.

MrP

If only.

I mean truly, after a diligent and exhaustive investigation. Not some slip-shod or 'who can think of a likely suspect - let's frame him' scenario.

___________________________________________________________________
Genesis 9:6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.

lmaopml

wolfsbane wrote: »

As far as I can gather, Christianity has historically had no problem supporting the execution of murderers. The Biblical case permitting it is beyond questioning.

It is a novel thing for a Christian to be anti-CP. Common enough today, but not historically or Biblically.

Hi Wolfsbane,

I totally agree, that it is part of our history; not only Christianity but even more broadly speaking; and it's still in use today in many parts of the globe. I don't know if it's so much 'novel' as you say, to be against it these days in general because we have seen the innocent slain;

...actually, we should know all about that.



When I reply to this thread, I'm moreso replying within a personal opinion aspect, which is perfectly fine; as we do that every time we elect a government official who puts forth various opinons, values and offers their policy on current issues within society, anything from justice to fiscal policy...


If I believed that CP actually did any good whatsoever for society, which is what Romans 13 is about, then I wouldn't feel so strongly about it. However, I don't see how it does any good these days whatsoever...It should be left in the past 'imo', and that's how I vote..

The 'bible' supports my viewpoint too, and certainly doesn't clash or disregard it in 'favour' of CP. I have very little sympathy for those who find themselves in such a position that 'death' is the only justice society would afford, but I remember Mary who was to be stoned to death in the New Testament and how Jesus offered his words of wisdom....


I have a vote and I would never recommend or vote someone to office to have such power, who proposed that CP would deter criminals...

It doesn't. I will say 'it doesn't', because I live in a society that knows the pit falls of reducing human beings...and has risen above that 'value' assessment..

The bible says many things about law etc. and it's up to us to put them in perspective within the framework of government and conscience.

Benicetomonty

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hi, Benicetomonty

The only misgiving about CP I have is the weakness of a State's justice system. Innocent people do get framed by corrupt or incompetent systems. Where there is doubt, a life sentence would be more appropriate, I think.

But in cases beyond reasonable doubt, I think the risk acceptable. And we all agree on taking some risks with the welfare of the innocent - for life imprisonment is not a holiday. Many inmates end their imprisonment by suicide, so it is no light thing to inflict life imprisonment on one who is wrongly convicted.

And execution is not necessarily barbaric. Hanging, shooting, beheading can all be quick.


_________________________________________________________________
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.

I feel any murder of a human being is barbaric, the method is irrelevant. As I said, I don't doubt there are people who deserve to die; there is nobody who deserves to kill. Self-defence is the only possible reason one can offer me for the deliberate taking of another life, and even that should be investigated to the extreme. I completely agree with you that a life sentence is not a holiday. It shouldn't be. In cases beyond reasonable doubt, the culprit is locked up and the key is thrown away, removing the threat to society permanently.

On that point, If that person wants to commit suicide, all the better. It's saving the state a few quid and will probably be welcomed by the family/friends of his or her victims. Suicide is not a tragedy, certainly not compared to murder (and the two are absolutely incomparable). It is an act of narcissistic manipulation and deep hostility.

wolfsbane

Benicetomonty wrote: »

I feel any murder of a human being is barbaric, the method is irrelevant. As I said, I don't doubt there are people who deserve to die; there is nobody who deserves to kill. Self-defence is the only possible reason one can offer me for the deliberate taking of another life, and even that should be investigated to the extreme. I completely agree with you that a life sentence is not a holiday. It shouldn't be. In cases beyond reasonable doubt, the culprit is locked up and the key is thrown away, removing the threat to society permanently.

On that point, If that person wants to commit suicide, all the better. It's saving the state a few quid and will probably be welcomed by the family/friends of his or her victims. Suicide is not a tragedy, certainly not compared to murder (and the two are absolutely incomparable). It is an act of narcissistic manipulation and deep hostility.

But 'barbaric' is then your definition, not God's. My point is that God does not regard CP as barbaric in itself. And that should be it for the Christian.

_________________________________________________________________
Genesis 9:6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.

wolfsbane

lmaopml said:

Hi Wolfsbane,

I totally agree, that it is part of our history; not only Christianity but even more broadly speaking; and it's still in use today in many parts of the globe. I don't know if it's so much 'novel' as you say, to be against it these days in general because we have seen the innocent slain;

...actually, we should know all about that.

When I reply to this thread, I'm moreso replying within a personal opinion aspect, which is perfectly fine; as we do that every time we elect a government official who puts forth various opinons, values and offers their policy on current issues within society, anything from justice to fiscal policy...


If I believed that CP actually did any good whatsoever for society, which is what Romans 13 is about, then I wouldn't feel so strongly about it. However, I don't see how it does any good these days whatsoever...It should be left in the past 'imo', and that's how I vote..

The 'bible' supports my viewpoint too, and certainly doesn't clash or disregard it in 'favour' of CP. I have very little sympathy for those who find themselves in such a position that 'death' is the only justice society would afford, but I remember Mary who was to be stoned to death in the New Testament and how Jesus offered his words of wisdom....

Yes, Jesus as Lord could make exceptions. So do rulers - pardon, clemency, etc. But exceptions are not the rule. If all criminals were pardoned, hell on earth would result. And God has ordained the rule, as Romans 13 points out.

I have a vote and I would never recommend or vote someone to office to have such power, who proposed that CP would deter criminals...

It doesn't. I will say 'it doesn't', because I live in a society that knows the pit falls of reducing human beings...and has risen above that 'value' assessment..

It never deterred all murder, but it did deter many. What makes you think there would be no increase in murder if CP was removed from law? Have you seen that in Britain or America or elsewhere?

I don't see my society - or rather its rulers - having a higher view of man than before CP was abolished. I see rather life being very cheap. Men, women, children are murdered and the murderer is out again by the time he is 40. The only rights that get defended are those of the criminal.

The bible says many things about law etc. and it's up to us to put them in perspective within the framework of government and conscience.

Yes, we have to ask ourselves what persons these laws were aimed at: Jews under Moses? Citizens of the Roman empire? Citizens of our democracies today? All men everywhere and in all times? I think we will find the Noahic law on CP is permanent and universal.

_________________________________________________________________
Genesis 9:6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.

Benicetomonty

wolfsbane wrote: »

But 'barbaric' is then your definition, not God's. My point is that God does not regard CP as barbaric in itself. And that should be it for the Christian.

_________________________________________________________________
Genesis 9:6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.

"Treat one another as you yourself would like to be treated".

Might be a slight misquote, but you get the idea. Just because you've found a specific reference to CP in the Bible doesn't make it any less hypocritical.

wolfsbane

Benicetomonty wrote: »

"Treat one another as you yourself would like to be treated".

Might be a slight misquote, but you get the idea. Just because you've found a specific reference to CP in the Bible doesn't make it any less hypocritical.

So how should one want to be treated if one commits murder? A warning and a £100 fine? No, I would have no objection to CP if I commit murder, just as the penitent robber said:
Luke 23:40 But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.”

_________________________________________________________________
Genesis 9:6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.

Benicetomonty

wolfsbane wrote: »

So how should one want to be treated if one commits murder? A warning and a £100 fine? No, I would have no objection to CP if I commit murder, just as the penitent robber said:
Luke 23:40 But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.”

_________________________________________________________________
Genesis 9:6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.

Punishment for murder that has not been adequatley justified by self-defence or mental illness is to imprison for life without chance of parole. Simple.

I've always been skeptical about that chap who was crucified beside Jesus. First of all, outside of his celebrity status, I don't see how either of them knew Jesus from Adam (excuse the pun). Consequently, it's unlikely they would have known exactly why he was being crucified and they certainly wouldn't have known that he wasn't deserving of it. Secondly, considering the crime he had committed as well as the repurcussions that would follow in his understanding of the after-life, it is no surprise he would make an appeal to Jesus for some last minute salvation (assuming, again, he knew who this guy was). He had nothing to lose so he decided to take advantage of a dim-witted colleague and butter up the guy who might possibly have delivered him from eternal damnation..good call!

And you say he was only a penitent robber? Harsh on his part to be sentenced to death imho.

Anyway, I'll conceed you do seem to have found a quote from the Bible that seems to justify capital punishment...is there an equally specific quote that refers to abortion? Or just something that contradicts the one about capital punishment?

Festus

Benicetomonty wrote: »

I've always been skeptical about that chap who was crucified beside Jesus. First of all, outside of his celebrity status, I don't see how either of them knew Jesus from Adam (excuse the pun).

He was educated perhaps? Some poeple seem to think that the criminial classes are either unintelligent, uneducated, or both.
Fact of the matter is to be a successful crinimal requires both intelligence and education. That they were caught tried and sentenced is no measure of success - anyone can have an off day.
Nor am I sure they were sentenced to death for a first offence. They could have been caught and sent to prison before and if we are to use current understanding of criminality to "judge" the understanding or knowledge of a thief 2000 years ago then it is quite possible he used his previous bird constructively and studied what we know of as the "Old Testament" and recognised Jesus as the predicted Messiah.

That latter part may be far fetched but it is not beyond the bounds of reason that he was educated and did understand the predictions of the Messiah in the extant Bible.

Benicetomonty wrote: »

Consequently, it's unlikely they would have known exactly why he was being crucified and they certainly wouldn't have known that he wasn't deserving of it.

Consequently with a knowledge of the predicted Messiah allied with whatever "celebrity" knowledge they had he may very well have known exactly why He was being crucified and that He wasn't deserving of it but that it was necessary for the salvation of Man.

Benicetomonty wrote: »

Secondly, considering the crime he had committed as well as the repurcussions that would follow in his understanding of the after-life, it is no surprise he would make an appeal to Jesus for some last minute salvation (assuming, again, he knew who this guy was). He had nothing to lose so he decided to take advantage of a dim-witted colleague and butter up the guy who might possibly have delivered him from eternal damnation..good call!

Aren't you forgetting that if he knew who He was he would know that his heart could be read and if he was doing it for his own selfish sake He would know this and would have given a different response?

Benicetomonty wrote: »

And you say he was only a penitent robber? Harsh on his part to be sentenced to death imho.

Described as such as he was penitent while suffering on the cross. Probably just fell in with bad company.

Benicetomonty wrote: »

Anyway, I'll conceed you do seem to have found a quote from the Bible that seems to justify capital punishment...is there an equally specific quote that refers to abortion? Or just something that contradicts the one about capital punishment?

It's been paraphrased as "Do onto others as you would have them do unto you"

and there's Exodus

[22] If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child, and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman's husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award. [23] But if her death ensue thereupon, he shall render life for life. [24] Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, [25] Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

The problem you now have is that by admitting that human life has value simply be virtue of having human DNA

I didn't admit that I made a typo :rolleyes: This should have been clear because it would make no sense in the context of what I was saying and I already said the opposite already, that DNA has nothing to do with the value of the life form.

From my point of view the fetus becomes much more valuable when it has developed a brain, since the properties of the brain are the things that give human beings value over other species, rather than the make up of our DNA, or the species we have classified ourselves.

But then this isn't about what I said, this is about you proclaiming murderers are not persons.

You claimed human life is a person by having DNA from conception and then claimed that murderers aren't persons.

So what, murderers have different DNA to the rest of us?

Or was that a typo by you as well?

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

You claimed human life is a person by having DNA from conception and then claimed that murderers aren't persons.

So what, murderers have different DNA to the rest of us?

Or was that a typo by you as well?

No. It's you not being capable of reading. I said they are human but they are not persons. I never said anything about their DNA being different though I suppose it is possible that might be a "murderer gene". That wouldnt change them from being human any more than a gay gene or aneuploidy.

Go back and read what I wrote before. They were persons before they became murderers. Once they committed the act of murder they demostrated that they could no longer be considered persons.

Fanny Cradock

Both Moses murdered a man with his own hands and David sent another man off to his death after knocking up his wife. Despite these terrible transgressions God used these me to further his Kingdom.

antiskeptic

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Both Moses murdered a man with his own hands..

There were two Moses?

Fanny Cradock

Yeah, "The Real" Moses(TM) and "I can't believe it's not The Real Moses".

I had initially phrased the sentence differently and I neglected to get rid of the superfluous "both".

Whoops!

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

No. It's you not being capable of reading. I said they are human but they are not persons. I never said anything about their DNA being different though I suppose it is possible that might be a "murderer gene". That wouldnt change them from being human any more than a gay gene or aneuploidy.

You defined a "person" as someone with human DNA that exists since conception.

So again how is a murderer not a person? Does their DNA change when they kill someone? Or did they never have human DNA in the first place?

Festus wrote: »

Go back and read what I wrote before. They were persons before they became murderers. Once they committed the act of murder they demostrated that they could no longer be considered persons.

What property does unborn fetus' have from the moment of conception that a murderer doesn't have?

Benicetomonty

Festus wrote: »

Some poeple seem to think that the criminial classes are either unintelligent, uneducated, or both.
Fact of the matter is to be a successful crinimal requires both intelligence and education. That they were caught tried and sentenced is no measure of success - anyone can have an off day.
Nor am I sure they were sentenced to death for a first offence.
[/COLOR]

A successful criminal..what is that exactly? A politician perhaps?

The vast majority of criminals are indeed unintelligent and/or uneducated. That's why they resort to crime then get caught and convicted, thus making them 'criminals'. These two had at least 2 bad days, by your logic, presumably under the knowledge that the second offence would result in execution. This makes them exceptionally stupid criminals.

"They could have been caught and sent to prison before and if we are to use current understanding of criminality to "judge" the understanding or knowledge of a thief 2000 years ago then it is quite possible he used his previous bird constructively and studied what we know of as the "Old Testament" and recognised Jesus as the predicted Messiah.

That latter part may be far fetched but it is not beyond the bounds of reason that he was educated and did understand the predictions of the Messiah in the extant Bible."

This does sound far-fetched. Ridiculously so. Almost as bad as the rumour Mike Tyson was studying Plato during his incarceration


"Aren't you forgetting that if he knew who He was he would know that his heart could be read and if he was doing it for his own selfish sake He would know this and would have given a different response?"

So Jesus read his mind? Ok, I can believe that. So how come he had to ask why God had foresaken him later on that afternoon?


"If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child, and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman's husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award. [23] But if her death ensue thereupon, he shall render life for life. [24] Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, [25] Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

So the guy gets put to death for killing his wife but not for causing the miscarriage? I'd say that's pretty conclusive as to the Bible's real view on the value of a fetus: end of argument :cool:

Festus

Benicetomonty wrote: »

A successful criminal..what is that exactly? A politician perhaps?

Your words, not mine.

[/QUOTE]
The vast majority of criminals are indeed unintelligent and/or uneducated. That's why they resort to crime then get caught and convicted, thus making them 'criminals'. These two had at least 2 bad days, by your logic, presumably under the knowledge that the second offence would result in execution. This makes them exceptionally stupid criminals.
[/QUOTE]

Don't forget to tell them that next time you're on prison visitation duty. They'll love you.

Benicetomonty wrote: »

This does sound far-fetched. Ridiculously so. Almost as bad as the rumour Mike Tyson was studying Plato during his incarceration

So what's your plan if you have to do a stretch? Kill a few sperm cells?

Benicetomonty wrote: »

So Jesus read his mind? Ok, I can believe that. So how come he had to ask why God had foresaken him later on that afternoon?

You're missing the point. Suffice to say He lacked the energy to finish the Psalm He was quoting.

Benicetomonty wrote: »

"If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child, and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman's husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award. [23] But if her death ensue thereupon, he shall render life for life. [24] Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, [25] Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

So the guy gets put to death for killing his wife but not for causing the miscarriage? I'd say that's pretty conclusive as to the Bible's real view on the value of a fetus: end of argument :cool:

It doesn't say the husband struck his wife. You should practice readin before you start ritin

Benicetomonty

Festus wrote: »

Your words, not mine.

But feel free to still answer the question...

"Don't forget to tell them that next time you're on prison visitation duty. They'll love you."

I don't need to go on visitation duty. My friends/relatives aren't in jail.



"So what's your plan if you have to do a stretch? Kill a few sperm cells?"

I don't plan to go to jail. I'm not a criminal. But thats exactly what I'd do between you and me Not that I need to be in jail...



"You're missing the point. Suffice to say He lacked the energy to finish the Psalm He was quoting."

How...convenient. Either way he deliberatly misled me. Prankster God



It doesn't say the husband struck his wife. You should practice readin before you start ritin[/QUOTE]

You're criticising my ability to read/write? Sigh.

Quote still sounds pretty clear cut to me, once my typo is overlooked. A guy smacks a woman, she miscarries, her husband (assuming she has one, who knows what happens to her if she's not married..) gets to ponder the proper penance. Eye for eye...etc only becomes applicable if the fully developed person (ie: the wife) dies!
Also seems a teensy bit sexist, since it is the husband and not the female victim who gets to determine the punishment. But what do I know? English degree and all :rolleyes:

Festus

Benicetomonty wrote: »

It doesn't say the husband struck his wife. You should practice readin before you start ritin

You're criticising my ability to read/write? Sigh.

actually, it was your sense of humour I was more interested in ...

Benicetomonty wrote: »

But what do I know? English degree and all :rolleyes:

you said it.
:P

(p.s. noticed your other "typo" - penance and punishment are too different things. Where did you study english again? )

Festus

Benicetomonty wrote: »

How...convenient. Either way he deliberatly misled me. Prankster God

How do you figure that? Do you not have the ability to figure out the significance of what Jesus was saying, English degree and all? :rolleyes:

Benicetomonty

"(p.s. noticed your other "typo" - penance and punishment are too different things. Where did you study english again? ) "

The same place that tells you English is spelled with a capital letter and explains the variations of the word 'two'

Maybe it's just me but the last time I went to confession, penance did indeed feel like punishment, so hard for me to draw the distinction



"How do you figure that? Do you not have the ability to figure out the significance of what Jesus was saying, English degree and all? "

Not really tbh, when in one sentence you say to me that Jesus reads minds and in the next he doesn't understand why God is letting him be crucified...but then it is quite the psalm, perhaps it does explain what he really meant..eventually. But of all places in the Bible to not complete a pivotal quote! You'd think the direct word of God would be much less.. interpretable.


Except, of course, for the passage that actually relates to this thread re: value of human life! To summarise:
Adult:may be executed if crime fits the aforementioned punishment. Fetus: Fair game, only worth a response if a husband sees fit.

My pointing out your unwillingness and/or inability to respond to this in your last post over the decision to focus on my grammar and sense of humour shall suffice as my final contribution to our debate. Probably :pac:

wolfsbane

Benicetomonty said:

Punishment for murder that has not been adequatley justified by self-defence or mental illness is to imprison for life without chance of parole. Simple.

That's your assessment of the proper penalty. God says CP is also proper. Do you know better than God? Others would condemn your penalty as too severe, and limit the time to 12-20 years.

My point is that God has the right to say CP is proper.

I've always been skeptical about that chap who was crucified beside Jesus. First of all, outside of his celebrity status, I don't see how either of them knew Jesus from Adam (excuse the pun). Consequently, it's unlikely they would have known exactly why he was being crucified and they certainly wouldn't have known that he wasn't deserving of it.

They would have been as aware of Jesus' fame as anyone else. He had ministered among them for over 3 years. They knew His claims, and those of His opponents.

Secondly, considering the crime he had committed as well as the repurcussions that would follow in his understanding of the after-life, it is no surprise he would make an appeal to Jesus for some last minute salvation (assuming, again, he knew who this guy was). He had nothing to lose so he decided to take advantage of a dim-witted colleague and butter up the guy who might possibly have delivered him from eternal damnation..good call!

An insincere repentance would be an insult to God, so if this man believed Christ was indeed the Lord who was going to His kingdom in heaven, he would not be so foolish as to con Him in the face of death. No, the hard heart may try to bargain with God at death, but it does try to con him. The other thief shows how hard hearts are not softened by death. Only God's grace can change our hearts.

And you say he was only a penitent robber? Harsh on his part to be sentenced to death imho.

Depends what he did in the course of his crime.

Anyway, I'll conceed you do seem to have found a quote from the Bible that seems to justify capital punishment...is there an equally specific quote that refers to abortion? Or just something that contradicts the one about capital punishment?

Not that I can think of at the moment. Just the principles of life existing in the womb and so it being sacred. But I'll see what I can find.

_________________________________________________________________
Psalm 139:13 For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.

Benicetomonty

Ok, last one. Honest

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's your assessment of the proper penalty. God says CP is also proper. Do you know better than God? .

Yes, to be honest. But open to reasonable debate. Just not from God :rolleyes:

"They would have been as aware of Jesus' fame as anyone else. He had ministered among them for over 3 years. They knew His claims, and those of His opponents..."

Possibly, but hardly to the extent you credit them with. This is in the days before the mass media! No way they would've been able to confirm or even suspect his innocence. Especially after the Jesus' and Barabus' show earlier that week, where 99% of the gathering (bribed or otherwise) called for his blood.


"Depends what he did in the course of his crime."

Does it? He was crucified as a robber. If he killed someone or raped someone, he would've become a murderer or a rapist. He didn't.

"Not that I can think of at the moment. Just the principles of life existing in the womb and so it being sacred. But I'll see what I can find."

Don't kill yourself :cool:

_________________________________________________________________
Psalm 139:13 For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.