In answer to your question about if it is ever appropriate to take a human life, the answer is only when there is no other choice
Which is why capital punishment as practiced in the United States is evil
- Coffee & Doughnuts
- Catholic/Ecumenical Discussion
- Catholic/Jewish Discussion
- Catholic/Non-Catholic Discussion
- Catholic Debate Board
- Catholics Loyal to the Magisterium
- News/Articles/Propaganda/Etc
- Religious Website Reviews
- Literary Forum
- Board Hops, Board Rules and Catholic Links
- Prayer Requests
- Apologetics Files: General
- Apologetics Files: Historical
- Apologetics Files: Social Issues
- Moderator's Archives
George Tiller - Torturer and Mass Murderer died today.
| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Paul |
#61 | |||
|
Posts: 318 06/05/09 09:03:33 |
Which is why capital punishment as practiced in the United States is evil |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Paul |
#62 | |||
|
Posts: 319 06/05/09 09:05:38 |
Last Edited By: Paul 06/05/09 09:18:06.
Edited 1 time.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Argy Lacedom |
#63 | |||
|
Posts: 4028 06/05/09 13:19:09 Camper |
Hi Mati,
When you say that nobody advocates that it is okay to kill an 18 year old, a two year old, or a ninety year old, you are in error. If the person requires a lot of care, then it can indeed be advocated to starve that person to death (ref: Terri Schiavo).Terri Schiavo was dead years before her heart stopped beating. The person had long since departed. But this example also serves to illustrate my point further. In the debate about her their was a disagreement about the definition of humanness. Is a body without a functioning brain a human being? In answer to your question about if it is ever appropriate to take a human life, the answer is only when there is no other choice. If a man comes at me with a gun, I have the right to defend myself to include killing him if necessary.There is always another choice. You could choose not to defend yourself, or maybe to try to maim him. The fact is, you kill because it is an option you accept under the circumstances you find yourself in. The state has the right to capital punishment. This does not allow for the indiscriminate use. It should only be allowed when it is necessary to protect society and never for revenge.The state can always protect society by permanently locking the person away. Killing is not necessary. Also, I think you have a very inconsistent view of this. On the one hand you say that foetuses should be given the benefit of any tiny doubt, on the other you think state killing is acceptable even although our legal systems have proven to be in error on a very significant number of occasions - there is always some potential for doubt! Examples would be: Saddam Hussein. There would have been no way to imprison him that would not have kept society safe. It would have spawned extreme acts of terrorism from his followers.I disagree. There was no certainty that taking his life would foment more violence in the long run than permanent imprisonment. The only reason it was charged as such was so society could exact revenge.I think there is always an element of revenge in the death penalty.
What the question boils down to is this...
Is a thing good because god commands it or does god command it because it is good?
If the former, then the believer must accept that god could make murdering children good. If the latter, then the believer must accept that we have no
need of god for moral instruction.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
MartiW |
#64 | |||
|
Posts: 3956 06/05/09 14:12:18 ezOP |
I am mystified that you did not deal with the question of erring on the side of life at all.
It is an opinion that Terri Schiavo was dead. THey starved her to death to make sure of it. We need to err on the side of life. I said that I have a right to self-defense as my life is equally to be valued. I said that right including killing if necessary. This does not mean that I turn and look and immediately kill. Killing being necessary would be if maiming or incapacitating were ineffectual or impossible. In other words I can fight back with the intention of simple escape and he falls on his gun or knife and dies. I am not culpable. Or it could be that I cannot stop him without shooting him. He has chosen the situation and the circumstances, I have not. The cases that would qualify under the terms I just stated are miniscule. There is not always room for doubt. THere have been people who have been seen to kill others and indeed confess to killing others and all the evidence links them. That our legal system errs is inarguable. One of the biggest errors is in the application of the death penalty. AS I said some possible examples I gave and even then not knowing the exacts, I did not say that Saddam Hussein being executed was absolute but that it was possible based on the following and the unrest and the rampant terrorism and violence that followed him,etc. One would have to examine all the facets to say for sure and all of those facets were neither examined nor made public, ergo, one can only speculate therefore it gets a maybe. I can think of only one other case where I would give a maybe. However, I am not part of the legal system and do not have all the details. Even with criminals we need to err on the side of life. Simply stating the fact that while the state has the right to capital punishment, the number of cases which actually may qualify are so miniscule that it should occur with about the same frequency as Haley's comet, if that. The reason for employing the death penalty should never be vengence. That it is, again speaks to the improper use of it. If we cannot figure out the exact moment when life begins, then we have to extend our protection to those moments which have the potential to actually be the beginning of life. We must err on the side of life.
DEUS meus, ex toto corde amo Te super omnia, quia es infinite bonus et infinite amabilis; et ob amorem Tui proximum meum
diligo sicut meipsum, eique, si quid in me offendit, ignosco.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Argy Lacedom |
#65 | |||
|
Posts: 4032 06/06/09 21:54:56 Camper |
Hi Marti,
I am mystified that you did not deal with the question of erring on the side of life at all.In general I agree that erring on the side of least damage is the thing to do. Nevertheless, we quickly get into the area of the rights of a woman over a foetus. People are not merely a means to an end, but ends in themselves. A woman treated as an incubator of a foetus is merely a means to an end and is therefore not being regarded as a person. Is it doing less damage to treat a woman as a non-person, or an embryo as a person? The woman's right, as a person, to be treated as an end in herself, accords her the right, especially when the data and definitions are in hot dispute, to choose what criteria she will use regarding her pregnancy. It is an intensely personal decision. Sorry - I have to run - I will try to answer the rest of your post a bit later.
What the question boils down to is this...
Is a thing good because god commands it or does god command it because it is good?
If the former, then the believer must accept that god could make murdering children good. If the latter, then the believer must accept that we have no
need of god for moral instruction.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Paul |
#66 | |||
|
Posts: 327 06/07/09 08:49:45 |
A woman treated as an incubator of a foetus is merely a means to an end and is therefore not being regarded as a person. They are both persons. The developing child has a right to life as much as the mother who carries the child. In Jewish law this principle allows abortion to protect the mother in asmuch as we have the right to self deffense when being persued by something that may kill or severly damage us. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
wondrousgnat.christiansvsnon... |
#67 | |||
|
Posts: 59 06/07/09 10:35:29 |
Terri Shiavo never had the tests to deternie she was dead. Furthermore 3 nurses were fired for stating publicly that she spoke to them.
Near my house man kiled his pregnant girlfriend. He was charged with double homicide because the unborn baby also died. Then f Tiller kills thousands in late term abortions how is that not homicie? His chrch treated him like a saint DISGUSTING! |
|||
|
|
||||
|
MartiW |
#68 | |||
|
Posts: 3959 06/07/09 19:42:19 ezOP |
Argy Lacedom wrote:You are agreeing with something I never said. I said that we must err on the side of life. Whether you want to argue about the imposition a baby places on the mother or not has no bearing in that equation. Nobody is treating her as an incubator but as a mother of the child she has conceived. While she may be inconvenienced for 9 months or less by carrying a baby that she will put up for adoption does not counteract life. We must err on the side of life.
DEUS meus, ex toto corde amo Te super omnia, quia es infinite bonus et infinite amabilis; et ob amorem Tui proximum meum
diligo sicut meipsum, eique, si quid in me offendit, ignosco.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Argy Lacedom |
#69 | |||
|
Posts: 4034 06/07/09 20:25:46 Camper |
Hi Marti,
You are agreeing with something I never said. I said that we must err on the side of life.Then you have twisted my premise. You assume that life means humanness. A cancer is alive, but no one would suggest it is worth saving. A life is worth saving when it becomes human, not before. And it is the stage at which it becomes human that we are discussing. When I started the thread on the common bonds between pro-lifers and pro-choicers I wanted to highlight the common ground and show that hysterical accusations of pro-choicers being murderers and the like are baseless. In my view the wider debate should avoid this sort of accusatory tone, and concentrate on the basic issue. Both groups, pro-lifers and pro-choicers, believe human life should be protected. The issue is; when does a foetus become a person?
What the question boils down to is this...
Is a thing good because god commands it or does god command it because it is good?
If the former, then the believer must accept that god could make murdering children good. If the latter, then the believer must accept that we have no
need of god for moral instruction.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
MartiW |
#70 | |||
|
Posts: 3960 06/07/09 21:19:31 ezOP |
If we cannot agree, then we must err on the side of life.
DEUS meus, ex toto corde amo Te super omnia, quia es infinite bonus et infinite amabilis; et ob amorem Tui proximum meum
diligo sicut meipsum, eique, si quid in me offendit, ignosco.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Argy Lacedom |
#71 | |||
|
Posts: 4035 06/08/09 23:49:19 Camper |
It appears my hopes of finding common ground are doomed.
What the question boils down to is this...
Is a thing good because god commands it or does god command it because it is good?
If the former, then the believer must accept that god could make murdering children good. If the latter, then the believer must accept that we have no
need of god for moral instruction.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
MartiW |
#72 | |||
|
Posts: 3965 06/09/09 08:34:32 ezOP |
There is no common ground when people place convenience ahead of life.
DEUS meus, ex toto corde amo Te super omnia, quia es infinite bonus et infinite amabilis; et ob amorem Tui proximum meum
diligo sicut meipsum, eique, si quid in me offendit, ignosco.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
wondrousgnat.christiansvsnon... |
#73 | |||
|
Posts: 64 06/09/09 11:31:27 |
Announced today by Tiller's family that the clinic will be permanently closed
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Argy Lacedom |
#74 | |||
|
Posts: 4037 06/09/09 14:35:27 Camper |
The issue of convenience is irrelevant if only one of the lives is a human being.
What the question boils down to is this...
Is a thing good because god commands it or does god command it because it is good?
If the former, then the believer must accept that god could make murdering children good. If the latter, then the believer must accept that we have no
need of god for moral instruction.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
MartiW |
#75 | |||
|
Posts: 3968 06/09/09 15:46:23 ezOP |
The issue of convenience has no place at all if there is the slightest chance that baby is a life.
DEUS meus, ex toto corde amo Te super omnia, quia es infinite bonus et infinite amabilis; et ob amorem Tui proximum meum
diligo sicut meipsum, eique, si quid in me offendit, ignosco.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Argy Lacedom |
#76 | |||
|
Posts: 4039 06/09/09 18:57:03 Camper |
No one disputes that a foetus is alive, but life alone does not make a thing a human being.
I started the thread recognising that pro-choicers and pro-lifers have different definitions of when humanness arose. As I said, I did not want to get into a debate about definitions that divide the two groups, but to highlight the common ground in the hope that a more constructive dialogue might take place. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but I'm happy to discuss the issue of abortion with you in more detail in a new thread if you wish.
What the question boils down to is this...
Is a thing good because god commands it or does god command it because it is good?
If the former, then the believer must accept that god could make murdering children good. If the latter, then the believer must accept that we have no
need of god for moral instruction.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
MartiW |
#77 | |||
|
Posts: 3970 06/09/09 19:51:36 ezOP |
Actually, you did not start this thread.
If the fetus is alive then what could that fetus be other than human? One only has to look at the DNA to know the child is human.
DEUS meus, ex toto corde amo Te super omnia, quia es infinite bonus et infinite amabilis; et ob amorem Tui proximum meum
diligo sicut meipsum, eique, si quid in me offendit, ignosco.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Burke |
#78 | |||
|
Posts: 4791 06/10/09 08:32:41 Camper |
Hi Gary,
>
The issue of convenience is irrelevant if only one of the lives is a human being.
After five weeks it has brain activity, heart beat, two legs and two arms; if it isn't human, then what is it? It is fascinating to see the lengths
people will go to in rationalizing their position on abortion. I could at least have some respect for the pro-choice camp if they would just call it what it
is: human life in utero has no rights and can be dealt with as one sees fit. One could at least be honest about it.
Peace, |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Argy Lacedom |
#79 | |||
|
Posts: 4040 06/10/09 23:40:25 Camper |
Hi Bob,
After five weeks it has brain activity, heart beat, two legs and two arms; if it isn't human, then what is it?I guess we're diverting this thread into another direction now - into considering what each of us believes makes us human. To me humanness is defined in degrees. In my view it evolves slowly, even continuing after birth. An essential part of humanness, to me anyway, is sentience and self awareness. Without self awareness we would be mere automatons; biological robots. I suspect that self awareness creeps up; that there is no distinct threshold that can be easily identified. I'm pretty sure ants do not have it (even although they have legs, a heart and brain activity much like a developing human foetus). I suspect that mammals have it in varying degrees, and that it becomes a significant driving force that shapes behaviour in "higher" mammals including apes and, of course, especially humans. Even although these animals have varying degrees of self awareness they are not human. If the development of, say, a five week old foetus was frozen forever in the one state it would be extremely difficult to claim that it was sentient or was self aware. It's brain function is simply not developed enough. I therefore would not call a foetus at that stage of development fully human - there's not much functional difference between it and, say, a platypus foetus. The only real difference between them is that the human foetus has the potential to become a sentient, self aware, human being. I am not certain what stage self awareness kicks in. I suspect it happens within a few months after birth. But because I am not certain I have drawn my moral line at some time soon after mid term pregnancy. It is interesting to note that the bible could be said to actually lend support to the idea that humanness occurs sometime well after conception. In the census described in Leviticus babies less than a month old were not counted, and in Numbers no value was placed on them.
What the question boils down to is this...
Is a thing good because god commands it or does god command it because it is good?
If the former, then the believer must accept that god could make murdering children good. If the latter, then the believer must accept that we have no
need of god for moral instruction.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Burke |
#80 | |||
|
Posts: 4793 06/11/09 08:29:40 Camper |
Hi Gary,
> To me humanness is defined in degrees. In my view it evolves slowly, even continuing after birth. You bring up an interesting point. A number of years ago I sat in on a philosophical discussion among some university profs on when one became a person. It came up in the context of women were not considered persons until early in the 20th century. The consensus was that one is not a person until they can love unconditionally. An infant is totally selfish only demanding its needs, thus does not love its parents in the accepted sense of the word. The age of three was finally settled on as the approximate point at which one could be called a person. It appears that you would at least consider this thinking to be valid. One of the pro-choice lobby's arguments is that the fetus is not a person, thus has no rights. If you follow the logic the termination of a new-born would be acceptable and even up to at least two years of age. That is the problem with the "when does humanness begin" position and why Marti is right when she says that we must err on the side of life. > I therefore would not call a foetus at that stage of development fully human I believe you would be better off arguing the state of "person" rather than humanness. It is fully human, it cannot be anything else. To say that it is not fully human leaves holes in your argument that one could drive a truck through. > In the census described in Leviticus babies less than a month old were not counted, and in Numbers no value was placed on them. I suspect that it had more to do with the infant mortality rate then when one became human. Peace, |
|||
|
|
||||
- Coffee & Doughnuts
- Catholic/Ecumenical Discussion
- Catholic/Jewish Discussion
- Catholic/Non-Catholic Discussion
- Catholic Debate Board
- Catholics Loyal to the Magisterium
- News/Articles/Propaganda/Etc
- Religious Website Reviews
- Literary Forum
- Board Hops, Board Rules and Catholic Links
- Prayer Requests
- Apologetics Files: General
- Apologetics Files: Historical
- Apologetics Files: Social Issues
- Moderator's Archives
