I am against abortion.
I am against euthenasia.
I am against vigilantism.
I am against capital punishment.
I am against assasinations, including of foreign leadership.
Killing is always a tragedy and should only be practiced reluctantly, in self-defense, whether as a nation or as an individual. Not only because it kills someone, but because it turns someone else into a killer. That is a heavy cross to bear.
Work for peace.
Pray for a ceasefire.
Hope for reconciliation.
Choose life. 🕯
💯
Gah there had to be an emoji and I can't sign emojis XD. Thanks for saying what needs to be said. Not sure there is one line I disagree with at this moment.
I envy such a view. I guess it makes you lucky.❤️
You probably never seen child raped, loved ones killed on front of your eyes or beloved slowly dying in your arms in unimaginable pain and no one could do anything to help them.
Weirdly before life I chose choice. And consequences of such choices.
Thank the Lord I haven't seen any of that personally, but injustice doesn't justify more injustice. A terrible crime has happened, pray to the Lord to give you the power to forgive them, however impossibly hard it may be.
The wish to hurt the perpetrator after such action is normal and obvious, but acting on it is weakness.
I"f you murder a murderer the number of murderers hasn't changed" as the saying goes
I am too old and too lazy to argue.
I guess I am talking about killing out of love.
World is weird and wonderful
And very rarely black and white.
I guess deep down I am closer to your view. But I understand that life can do tricks on anyone.
The assumption that anyone is pro-life because they've had an easy life, free of suffering or witnessing suffering, is evidence that your worldview is too narrow.
If you go to Christ, He can comfort you and you can offload these decisions, and find some inner peace. These decisions are too much for humans to bear. We were never meant to bear them.
This is the only logical position. People often argue for some of those but are against the others. Killing is never ok, no matter who the target is.
🫂✝️
Well said.
1,2,3,5 are different descriptions and degrees of murder. In so much as we people share the same nature as those murdered in those examples, it is unnatural (insane) to murder one’s own nature. So they are clearly evil.
4 is justice and does not fit in my understanding.
One reason, and it is only one of many, is that capital punishment brings the imminent threat of certain death to the forefront of the killer. It imposes the reality of the evil he has done onto his consciousness in a way nothing else - perhaps most especially lifetime incarceration*- can.
This can bring him to the point of repentance and, having destroyed one life and ruined his own in the process, offer the most realistic chance to proximate repentance and salvation of his soul.
Since we people all share the same nature then it would seem to me to be sane to support capital punishment as salvation is a (the only) rational goal.
There is a very rational caveat to say that the certainty of conviction of capital crimes (man is fallible) means that the chance of an innocent on death row is too big a risk thus capital punishment is too unsafe to support. I think this is a reasonable argument to try to make.
Capital punishment is a form of self defence for a country. The European distaste for execution that has spread throughout the developed world will likely be its downfall. Extrajudicial killings cannot be seen as equivalent to legal executions of the worst 0.1% of offenders.
Killing is only self-defense if there is a plausible risk. If you can execute someone, then they are already arrested and the risk has been mitigated. You can simply keep them in confinement.
The Catechism has been revised to say:
> 2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
> Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
> Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
*I approve of this message.*
so long as the prisoner must do all the labors to keep themselves and only get the space to do it in, i approve also.
killing in self defense is the only case where it is righteous. shooting a fleeing sniper, for example, would be legitimate, because if he gets away he can do it again with little impediment, and no recourse for the next victim either.
but if you have them cornered or cuffed there's no reason to kill. but they neither should be allowed to interact with civil society, and if they are violent while locked up as well, same thing applies, since their violence would impact the right of life of their fellow inmates.
The ten commandments come from the Old Testament, where the original commandment was do not murder (unlawfully kill). This is very clear because:
a) the Hebrew word for murder is distinct from the word for kill
b) Leviticus, also from the Old Testament commands you to put certain people to death
c) A Rabbinical court determined Jesus was worthy of death, a sentence that wouldn't exist to them if that commandment had the meaning the Catholic Church now implies
No matter how harsh a custodial sentence may be imposed, future legislators, judges and parole boards may (and very often do) commute those sentences in the future.
Christ fulfilled the Law, and He told us to love our enemies, and to do to our neighbor, what we would want done to us.
Criminals are also our neighbors.
Criminals are absolutely not your neighbors. You're told to love your enemies, distinct from your neighbors in the verse you're referencing.
You're basically doing the leftist meme
Your neighbor is any particular person you encounter, including your enemies and criminals.
> 27. Coming down to practical and particularly urgent consequences, this council lays stress on reverence for man; everyone must consider his every neighbor without exception as another self, taking into account first of all His life and the means necessary to living it with dignity, so as not to imitate the rich man who had no concern for the poor man Lazarus.
> In our times a special obligation binds us to make ourselves the neighbor of every person without exception and of actively helping him when he comes across our path, whether he be an old person abandoned by all, a foreign laborer unjustly looked down upon, a refugee, a child born of an unlawful union and wrongly suffering for a sin he did not commit, or a hungry person who disturbs our conscience by recalling the voice of the Lord, "As long as you did it for one of these the least of my brethren, you did it for me" (Matt. 25:40)
> [...] The teaching of Christ even requires that we forgive injuries,and extends the law of love to include every enemy, according to the command of the New Law: "You have heard that it was said: Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thy enemy. But I say to you: love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who persecute and calumniate you" (Matt. 5:43-44).
when people speak evil, speak about how they are speaking evil
when people do evil acts, you must act to prevent them doing it again
turn the other cheek doesn't mean go out and get yourself repeatedly fucked over by an evil person. it means show the rest of the people around you what happened as soon as possible.
evil people do not stop doing evil until they are forced to stop.
this is still love. vengeful, disproportionate responses are not effective or an example to follow. if that means shooting as they run off to go commit another evil deed another day, that is still loving your enemy.
He is saying that we should shoot them, even if they are arrested and confined.
For our own satisfaction.
yeah, that's not ok
shooting is only when they resist being arrested. they have the choice to stop running away. but once they are confined what's the point in killing them?
this problem that america had in the last 30 years with so many prisoners was caused by an unjust monopoly of licensure on drug production and sales. yet at the same time, giving license holding drug companies the freedom to bombard people to persuade them to seek drugs 🤬 pure hypocrisy, and why there was so many prisoners.
and it had a subsequent effect of putting people who just wanted to use or sell drugs but never engaged in violent behaviour into contact with those who were in prison for violent behaviour, which is known to lead to the more susceptible individuals to become inured to violence, get out, and actually become violent people.
they literally were enforcing these laws to bring slave labor to private jail companies.
so, to be clear, violence is violence. there is nothing violent about engaging in trade of goods produced by or acquired by just means. there would be a lot less incentive to produce, sell and use many drugs without these artificial incentives.
and people who are mentally unstable, have a primary problem before the drugs come into the picture, and make it worse, it doesn't help them either to persecute them based on this. again, putting them into jail for simply making personal choices exposes the risk of them becoming radicalized to criminality by those who already are.
anyway, i went off on that tangent to talk about the cost of keeping these people locked up.
don't lock people up for competing with a monopoly. there shouldn't even be a monopoly. because putting black marketeers into prison with violent criminals just provides violent criminals with people who can bring money in to make even more violence.
I'm not talking about shooting anyone. I'm talking about executing convicted criminals who've committed heinous offences.
yeah, nah. you just lock them up permanently, with no right to parole ever, no exceptions. period. spend the least amount of resources feeding and providing them the ability to stay clean and minimal medical assistance while restrained to treat only life threatening conditions. best to not let them commit suicide either. and soundproof their cell so they can't talk to anyone either, without full surveillance and guard.
IMO, permanent solitary confinement should be what rapists, murderers and sundry types of brutality should win them, on the second round, after they do the standard 25 years 12 years parole with good behaviour.
second time they are confirmed to not be human after being locked up and given time to ponder their situation. no need to kill them though. vengeance does not bring back their victims, and the satisfaction is empty.
it's enough to just exclude them permanently from society.
oh and in case of apocalypse, they can starve to death.
Extensive solitary confinement drives people insane, tho. If they're completely out of control, then they probably need to be in the mental ward, really.
Obviously, you're right that we shouldn't endanger the other prisoners.
there's not a lot of difference between the mental institution and solitary. more doctors around, that's about it. and yeah, it should be considered to be a psychiatric disturbance, because it is. one time, with extenuating circumstances, can just be a breakdown of their reason. two times is absolutely this guy's brain is wrong.
As far as I know, the death penalty is actually more expensive than life in prison. Sometimes by multiple millions of dollars.
Some States have ended it to save money and staff, in fact.
it really isn't that expensive to keep someone fed and clothed for 30-50 years
it's not like they should have any comforts. give them a bible if they ask for it. not even a TV. let them have friends or relatives give them books if they have any people who care about them. let them talk to a priest if they want to.
Agree about the drugs and other nonviolent offenses. Especially, as we now have more effective at-home confinement and electronic monitoring and stuff.
yeah, even if you don't reform the prohibition laws that would be a lot better. ankle bracelet and surveillance of their home, and decent food delivered along with necessary groceries and sometimes clothing.
the point that a lot of drug people are violent criminals is a point, that would be way better to keep them away from these kinds. especially for opiates and stimulants.
Once they repent, is it proper to kill them? Serious question.
God was clear about animals that kill humans: from their life will the blood be repaid. The same for humans.
But I'm happy to concede on the grounds of mercy.
But there is something else: deterrent. Consider the phrase "the only thing they understand is force". There are people that would consider committing evil if it were not for the consequences.
The consequences need to be there. The laws need teeth.
I might even suggest it would be good if the execution were public / leaked.
The biggest deterrent is the chance of getting caught and the likelihood of successful prosecution.
I think capital punishment is favored, in the USA, because normal punishments are already so draconian that you have to "top" them, for particularly heinous crimes. We don't have that issue here, as we don't have such long sentences, so life in prison is how we "top".
What is proper about killing anyone? Makes it sound like it's a polite habit, like chewing food with your mouth closed.
I am of the opinion that we should avoid killing ourselves or others, whether intentionally or by accident. The Church doesn't condemn capital punishment as evil, but it's definitely something we should tend to prefer the alternatives to, wherever possible and practical.
Bad take on abortion and euthenasia. You dont decide for others when they want to end their life or what to do with an embryo.
Agree on this. Some extreme anti abortion people will probably one day prohibit ejaculation that is not going into a recreation.
Maby they have to accept, that not every mass of cellulas are a human already. So stop acting as something is dying, when it is not able to live already.
