Marco Esquandolas said:
I mean you sort of have to give the RCC props for trying to be consistent about being "pro-life" in a way that many Protestants just aren't interested in being.
The argument is not why I am personally against the death penalty, I only presented it because Martin Q Blank stated -AstroAg17 said:
It's strange to me that you're using a different argument than the church. If guilt could be determined perfectly, would you then support the death penalty? There are many crimes where guilt can clearly be determined. Your argument doesn't address these.
The church's position is that the death penalty is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of a person, not that the government can't be trusted.
when Marco Esquandolas stated his views on abortion and capital punishment were inconsistent.Quote:
I do not support putting to death the innocent. Fully consistent with my view about putting to death the innocent.
Marco Esquandolas said:
Some nice company we have here. But I'm sure our white American protestants know better than the rest of the free world.
Athanasius said:
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."
- Gandalf the Grey
AstroAg17 said:I hope you agree that in many cases, the error is not corrected. Innocent people die in prison, which is an unfortunate side effect of imprisoning people.Marco Esquandolas said:AstroAg17 said:
Do you approve of keeping innocent people in jail until they die? Of course you don't. Nobody does. But we accept that it might happen because we aren't willing to let the more heinous criminals leave prison.
Ending someone's life is hugely qualitatively different from that. It precludes even the possibility of the error being corrected, which life in prison at least allows.
I still think that by your logic, you approve of innocents dying in prison.
The fact that the decision can be reversed is irrelevant when we know that many times, it isn't.
You said:Quote:
On Earth it is impossible to support the death penalty without implicitly approving of murdering the innocent because it is literally impossible to enforce it "perfectly"
This clearly applies to any consequence of any action. Taking the action implies approval of the consequence to you.
This is my issue with it. I'm fine with the death penalty in very clear-cut cases, but it's just applied too willy-nilly and I don't know how you go about defining "very clear-cut case" in statute. It's way too much of an "I'll know it when I see it" type thing. Mental capacity defenses aside, I think the easiest cases for me are those of your typical spree shooter. Lots of people (usually) saw them, there's plenty of evidence of their preparation, and if they live through it themselves they'll typically gleefully tell you all about it.Aggrad08 said:
I would agree if we had a system where you needed 100% proof of guilt for the death penalty. Look How many people have been released from death row. Killing the innocent is a virtual guarantee. And unlike the virtual gaurantee of inprisonment of the innocent, it cannot be rectified.
It's an unfair tool both sides of both issues use to score a cheap "gotcha" against the other. Either position on either issue has valid arguments for and against it that are totally independent of those that apply to the other issue.Quote:
I really don't understand the parallels both sides draw between the death penalty and abortion.
"beyond a reasonable doubt."Quote:
I don't know how you go about defining "very clear-cut case" in statute.
Aggrad08 said:
I would agree if we had a system where you needed 100% proof of guilt for the death penalty. Look How many people have been released from death row. Killing the innocent is a virtual guarantee. And unlike the virtual gaurantee of inprisonment of the innocent, it cannot be rectified.
This is where I am. I don't trust any government to justly and impartially deal out punishment in every case, so better to make a somewhat reversible mistake (though I wouldn't call 30 years of false imprisonment reversible or reparable). It also rankles me as Christian, as even the most depraved sociopath has a chance for redemption as long as they are alive. Killing them not only deprives them of life but also the potential for salvation.Quote:
While I am against the death penalty for this country, I think the pope was wrong in making this change. While most do, not every country has the resources we have in regards to locking up criminals and keeping the population safe from them.
If you live in a s#%$hole country in Africa who can't keep their population safe, than I think that is a valid case for the death penalty.
dargscisyhp said:
It's equivocation in my opinion, but sure, it makes a good sound-bite.
Aggrad08 said:Marco Esquandolas said:
Some nice company we have here. But I'm sure our white American protestants know better than the rest of the free world.
Southern white protestants have been dragged into the modern world kicking and screaming. It's an almost diliberately backward and antipathetic group. I can hardly think of a major social advancement in the last 200 years where this group wasn't the backbone of the opposition.
The catholic church is right on this morally and consistently pro life.
Aggrad08 said:
Ah the ever sophisticated don't criticize what's obviously wanting because you belong to a peculiar and small demographic defense. How thoughtful. But don't worry, southern protestants continue to be dragged along kicking and screaming.
7thGenTexan said:Aggrad08 said:
Ah the ever sophisticated don't criticize what's obviously wanting because you belong to a peculiar and small demographic defense. How thoughtful. But don't worry, southern protestants continue to be dragged along kicking and screaming.
I notice your Arabic family decided to move to a culture established by Southern WASPs and that you graduated from an institution established by Southern WASPs, but please continue your rather rude invective.
Aggrad08 said:dargscisyhp said:
It's equivocation in my opinion, but sure, it makes a good sound-bite.
I don't think it is in particular in that pro choice and pro life are terms that are used as sound bites not as rigorous distinctions. I'd say pro choice people deny personhood and saying they are anti life is equivocation also.
7thGenTexan said:Aggrad08 said:
Ah the ever sophisticated don't criticize what's obviously wanting because you belong to a peculiar and small demographic defense. How thoughtful. But don't worry, southern protestants continue to be dragged along kicking and screaming.
I notice your Arabic family decided to move to a culture established by Southern WASPs and that you graduated from an institution established by Southern WASPs, but please continue your rather rude invective.
Aggrad08 said:
Ah the even more sophisticated don't criticize what's obviously wanting because you live here and because they aren't awful in every single way defenses. There are many things southern white protestants are historically good at, this isn't one of them.
Frok said:
This thread needs the death penalty
Potlucks. They're really good at potlucks.Quote:
There are many things southern white protestants are historically good at
