Topic: Doctor found guilty of murder in late-term abortions

[ialmisry]

Sick stuff for sure.

If this was politics, I'd post who voted to make this all legal.

[ialmisry]

If the death penalty is ever justifiable, then this man deserves it.

So you can't have an abortion, but you can execute the post-born.

Interesting.

It's called "crime and punishment."

[Cyrillic]

Sick stuff for sure.

If this was politics, I'd post who voted to make this all legal.

Apparently it isn't legal, though. He has been found guily.

[TheTrisagion]

He was convicted on the babies that were actually born and then killed.  He was not convicted for the babies where they were aborted pre-birth.  If you abort a baby that is unborn but 8 months along, it is illegal and you get in trouble, but you don't get charged with murder.  That only happens when the baby is actually alive outside the womb and you end it's life.

[J Michael]

He was convicted on the babies that were actually born and then killed.  He was not convicted for the babies where they were aborted pre-birth.  If you abort a baby that is unborn but 8 months along, it is illegal and you get in trouble, but you don't get charged with murder.  That only happens when the baby is actually alive outside the womb and you end it's life.

Amazing, isn't it?  Up to x weeks it's not a baby and it's okay to kill it.  Past x and up to y weeks it's still not a baby and it's suddenly not (?) okay to kill it, but it's not murder if you do.  Once it pops it's tiny head out, it's not legal to kill it and it's murder only if you get convicted.  And some folks think it's perfectly alright, though not *yet* legal, to kill kids up to the age of 2 or so!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll never be able to wrap my head around that sick, warped logic mind set--hopefully.

[Cyrillic]

Sadly there's not much we can do.

[Fotina02]

This story convicts me and my complacency that I should be just as outraged at all the abortionists (their job is to kill babies!), and abortions they perform daily of helpless, innocent, precious little ones.

[primuspilus]

I just hope now that death is not used to punish death. Give him life in prison. Bubba has never met his baby, something Im sure he'll inform the good "doctor" of......

[NicholasMyra]

Sanctimonious rot at its best.  Yes, he is a human monster that should be executed in the same manner as those he killed.  I make NO apology for that feeling.  But then again, I can understand where you are coming from - a religious organization with no discernible moral code.

If you mean to imply that the Orthodox Church substitutes Baal and Ares for Christ, whereas the Anglican Church does not, I would have to disagree.

A lot of people really enjoyed reading this story about the bad doctor. They got to feel outrage, which is one of the most pleasurable emotions a human being can experience. Quite the endorphin high. Really makes you feel on top of the world.

More sanctimony.

"Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill."

Not pagan justice.

[lovesupreme]

I'm perturbed that those who are in favor of the murder of this doctor are disparagingly calling their opponents "holier than thou" or "sanctimonious." This has nothing to do with the saintliness (or false saintliness) of anyone. It's a basic Christian belief to love your enemies. This includes not only your next door neighbor whose dog keeps digging up your rhododendrons, but extends even to adulterers, thieves, and murderers.

I don't see how the "righteous" vengeance that some of you are promoting is compatible with the teachings of Our Lord.

It's certainly appropriate to be disgusted and horrified by this, but to demand retribution at the hands of man? I think that crosses the line from holy suffering to sinful, barbaric bloodlust.

Of course, this is not an argument I intend to somehow "win." I cannot fully control my own desires, much less the desires of others. But I would ask that those with anger turn to prayer, and ask God that those who require repentance repent, that the lives of innocents be spared, and that this crazy mixed up world wakes up and sees fully the atrocities that it commits. If that request is too "sanctimonious" for you, I apologize. I am only advocating what I was catechized to advocate.

[TheTrisagion]

I don't think anyone is advocating the "murder" of the doctor.  They are advocating a judicial system that would mete out a justice that he is arguably owed.  That being said, I agree with most of what else you said. 

[lovesupreme]

I don't think anyone is advocating the "murder" of the doctor.  They are advocating a judicial system that would mete out a justice that he is arguably owed.  That being said, I agree with most of what else you said. 

I admit to using charged language, but I don't see vengeance "as meting out justice." I see it as murder, no matter how heinous the crimes being avenged are. The state willfully takes someone's life because it believes it is being just. But I do not believe that murder is ever just. He is now no longer a threat to society, so there is no applicable "self defense."

Christ certainly showed us what justice is, but he never said that we are to determine which murders are just and which are not.

[J Michael]

I don't think anyone is advocating the "murder" of the doctor.  They are advocating a judicial system that would mete out a justice that he is arguably owed.  That being said, I agree with most of what else you said. 

I admit to using charged language, but I don't see vengeance "as meting out justice." I see it as murder, no matter how heinous the crimes being avenged are. The state willfully takes someone's life because it believes it is being just. But I do not believe that murder is ever just. He is now no longer a threat to society, so there is no applicable "self defense."

Christ certainly showed us what justice is, but he never said that we are to determine which murders are just and which are not.

The fact that you see it as murder doesn't make it so.  That is your opinion.  The state metes out "justice" as justice (as it sees that) *and* as a form of defense of its citizens.  The Catholic Church, through the Catechism, teaches that:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2267.htm

From what I understand, the Orthodox Church teaches something similar although it hasn't been delineated in any catechism that I know of.

The problem, often times, given the proclivities and biases of many judges and parole boards, is that "life" doesn't always mean the rest of the convict's natural life, and "life without parole" doesn't always mean "without parole", let alone "life".  This results in violent offenders (murderers, rapists, etc.) being set free only to re-offend in an equally heinous manner as that which got them to prison in the first place.  Unfortunately, the state, contrary to the CCC paragraph above, all too often does *not* have means of effectively preventing crime or rendering the criminal incapable of doing harm.  A fairly quick but regular perusal of the newspaper will show you that.

[lovesupreme]

I'm sorry, but I would define murder as willfully taking another human being's life, except when acting in self defense. What this doctor has committed is murder. What the state will commit if he is sentenced to the death penalty is murder.

Is that my opinion? Please, I implore you. Offer up the "approved" objective completely factual definition.

 I don't see the point in arguing that if we don't murdrr him now, he might get out early and he might strike again. Are we clairvoyant? How can we assume that the worst will happen? If we let fear and anger drive out decisions.

[J Michael]

He got life imprisonment.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/14/convicted-pennsylvania-abortion-doctor-gets-life-in-prison/

[J Michael]

I'm sorry, but I would define murder as willfully taking another human being's life, except when acting in self defense. What this doctor has committed is murder. What the state will commit if he is sentenced to the death penalty is murder.

Is that my opinion? Please, I implore you. Offer up the "approved" objective completely factual definition.

 I don't see the point in arguing that if we don't murdrr him now, he might get out early and he might strike again. Are we clairvoyant? How can we assume that the worst will happen? If we let fear and anger drive out decisions.

Murder is the unlawful, willful taking of another life.  It's the "unlawful" part that makes it murder.  And it is the state, through the elected representatives of the people, that makes the law.

Anyway, he received a life sentence and will probably die in prison.

[lovesupreme]

Please, do not think that I gloat over this decision. His life is truly in the hands of God now.

[GabrieltheCelt]

  Looking at the Seventh commandment, we see that it is a prohibition against murder but not killing.  In fact, capital punishment (killing) is often the punishment for murder throughout the Old Testament so it's an exercise in futility to equate the two.  In this particular case, the difference between murder and capital punishment is exceptionally clear.  Because we're Orthodox Christians, we're obliged not only to forgive this man but also to pray for Dr. Gosnell.  However, our obligations to pray and forgive do not forfeit the consequences of his actions.  

 

[J Michael]

Please, do not think that I gloat over this decision. His life is truly in the hands of God now.

Would you rather have seen a different outcome for him, given his actions? 

All of our lives are in the hands of God.  Without Him we are literally nothing.

[lovesupreme]

Please, do not think that I gloat over this decision. His life is truly in the hands of God now.

Would you rather have seen a different outcome for him, given his actions? 

All of our lives are in the hands of God.  Without Him we are literally nothing.

I hope you didn't think I was implying that his life was any less in God's hands before. I was merely trying to emphasis the danger he now faces in prison.

It is not my place to deem what 'should' happen to him. If he got the death penalty, I would not stage a protest. I would still think it was wrong for the state to murder him, and for people to desire his murder.

[Alveus Lacuna]

You advocate killing someone because they killed?

Different classes of killing. Execution for murder. Nuance is everything.

By this logic we couldn't incarcerate those guys accused of kidnapping and trapping those three women in Cleveland for 10 years in their house:

"You advocate confining someone for confining others? Hypocrisy!"

[J Michael]

Please, do not think that I gloat over this decision. His life is truly in the hands of God now.

Would you rather have seen a different outcome for him, given his actions? 

All of our lives are in the hands of God.  Without Him we are literally nothing.

I hope you didn't think I was implying that his life was any less in God's hands before. I was merely trying to emphasis the danger he now faces in prison.

It is not my place to deem what 'should' happen to him. If he got the death penalty, I would not stage a protest. I would still think it was wrong for the state to murder him, and for people to desire his murder.

Yes, prison can be a dangerous place.  Maybe not quite as dangerous as Gosnell's clinic, though.  Anyway, there's that old saying, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."  He isn't going to prison as a result of the capricious, random pointing of a fairy wand at a list of doctors, you know.

[lovesupreme]

J Michael, you seem to think that I don't take the doctor's crimes as seriously as I ought to. While I do not agree with you on everything, I certainly agree that he committed some truly atrocious murders. I am not his advocate. I am firmly pro-life and I do not think this was a corrupt or "racist" trial.

[GabrieltheCelt]

If the death penalty is ever justifiable, then this man deserves it.

So you can't have an abortion, but you can execute the post-born.

Interesting.

Your naivete is on full display.

[katherine 2001]

I am opposed to the death penalty in all situations.  As Christians, we ought to be quick to show mercy and slow to pass harsh judgements on others, even if they committed horrific acts.  Perhaps the rest of his life in prison will give him much needed time to reflect on the sins he committed and live the remainder of his life in repentance.  He may not be showing sorrow for his actions now, but none of us know how God might work on his heart.

Let us commit the memories of the children and woman who died to Christ.

I am against the death penalty too.  I believe that he should spend the rest of his life in prison with no chance of parole.  They may have to keep him in solitary confinement to keep other prisoners from killing him though.

I agree with both of you. I used to support it, but I just cant anymore. This is probably the most disgusting news story that I have ever heard, but it doesnt change the fact that this "monster" is still a human being created in the image and likeness of God. I certainly think that he should be severely punished, but I dont think it makes a ton of sense to kill someone to show everyone else that killing is wrong. Especially since we know that Christ didnt teach "an eye for an eye."

I totally understand how easy it is in this situation to wish he would just be killed. But if we truly desire the salvation of everyone, what would killing him actually accomplish, other than satisfying our own sense of justice? As others have stated, let us pray now more than ever for the salvation of his soul.

(Dont want to sound like a lib-hippie here, as thats certainly not me. Just my personal opinion of the death penalty.)

I agree with you here.  Jesus threw the "eye for an eye" out and gave us a different standard--we are not to return evil for evil.  Nobody is beyond salvation and life and death is in God's hands.  We are to live by what Christ and the apostles taught in the New Testament.  There is much that was changed in the New Testament from the Old Testament.  Besides to me, spending the rest of your life in prison without any possibility to get out is a worse punishment than death to a lot of prisoners.  Spending the rest of your life in prison can give you a lot of time to reflect on your actions.  After all, Jesus wasn't up on the cross cursing all of us and praying that the Father would kill all of us to make us pay for crucifying Him (and every one of us contributed to His crucifixion through our sin).

[Jonathan Gress]

I don't think you can apply the same standards to individuals and to the State. Individually, we are required to turn the other cheek and not return evil for evil. But we are also required to protect and defend each other, and those in authority are required to enforce the law and defend the country. All these may require violence.

[William]

I don't think you can apply the same standards to individuals and to the State. Individually, we are required to turn the other cheek and not return evil for evil. But we are also required to protect and defend each other, and those in authority are required to enforce the law and defend the country. All these may require violence.

Yep. Romans 13:4 allows for the government to use violence for justice's sake.

[NicholasMyra]

The fact that you see it as murder doesn't make it so.  That is your opinion.

I hope the irony of this statement is not lost on you.

[NicholasMyra]

 Looking at the Seventh commandment, we see that it is a prohibition against murder but not killing.

Such sophistry aside, according to Christ we are guilty of murder in this thread.

Yep. Romans 13:4 allows for the government to use violence for justice's sake.

Careful. If you want to go there, you gotta deal with all the civil servants of the Lord.

[lovesupreme]

I'm sorry, but I would define murder as willfully taking another human being's life, except when acting in self defense. What this doctor has committed is murder. What the state will commit if he is sentenced to the death penalty is murder.

Is that my opinion? Please, I implore you. Offer up the "approved" objective completely factual definition.

 I don't see the point in arguing that if we don't murdrr him now, he might get out early and he might strike again. Are we clairvoyant? How can we assume that the worst will happen? If we let fear and anger drive out decisions.

Murder is the unlawful, willful taking of another life.  It's the "unlawful" part that makes it murder.  And it is the state, through the elected representatives of the people, that makes the law.

Anyway, he received a life sentence and will probably die in prison.

I don't think your definition works at all. It's legal to abort in the United States. Would you not consider that murder, simply because it's "lawful"? What about the extermination of 11 million in the State-approved Holocaust? By your definition, the Third Reich committed no murders. Now does that sound right?

[JamesRottnek]

This is quite close to where I live.  The facts of what happened are horrific.

Lord, have mercy.

From what I have heard of this case, the facts are such that if I were on the jury, I could probably support imposing the death penalty for this monster.

Is he a monster?  I was under the impression he was a human.

Sanctimonious rot at its best.  Yes, he is a human monster that should be executed in the same manner as those he killed.  I make NO apology for that feeling.  But then again, I can understand where you are coming from - a religious organization with no discernible moral code.

Bless those who curse you.

[lovesupreme]

I don't think you can apply the same standards to individuals and to the State. Individually, we are required to turn the other cheek and not return evil for evil. But we are also required to protect and defend each other, and those in authority are required to enforce the law and defend the country. All these may require violence.

Yep. Romans 13:4 allows for the government to use violence for justice's sake.

Are we seriously just going to have a "Scripture Off"?

As they persisted with their question, he straightened up and said, 'Let the one among you who is guiltless be the first to throw a stone at her.'

'You have heard how it was said to our ancestors, You shall not kill; and if anyone does kill he must answer for it before the court. But I say this to you, anyone who is angry with a brother will answer for it before the court; anyone who calls a brother "Fool" will answer for it before the Sanhedrin; and anyone who calls him "Traitor" will answer for it in hell fire.

'You have heard how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I say this to you: offer no resistance to the wicked. On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other as well

'You have heard how it was said, You will love your neighbour and hate your enemy. But I say this to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you; so that you may be children of your Father in heaven, for he causes his sun to rise on the bad as well as the good, and sends down rain to fall on the upright and the wicked alike. For if you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Do not even the tax collectors do as much? And if you save your greetings for your brothers, are you doing anything exceptional? Do not even the gentiles do as much? You must therefore be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.'

Here is a saying that you can rely on and nobody should doubt: that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. I myself am the greatest of them; and if mercy has been shown to me, it is because Jesus Christ meant to make me the leading example of his inexhaustible patience for all the other people who were later to trust in him for eternal life.

'If the wicked, however, renounces all the sins he has committed, respects my laws and is law-abiding and upright, he will most certainly live; he will not die. None of the crimes he committed will be remembered against him from then on; he will most certainly live because of his upright actions. Would I take pleasure in the death of the wicked -- declares the Lord Yahweh -- and not prefer to see him renounce his wickedness and live?

That's more scriptures than you!!!  I win!!! Right? Isn't that how it works? 

[William]

I don't think you can apply the same standards to individuals and to the State. Individually, we are required to turn the other cheek and not return evil for evil. But we are also required to protect and defend each other, and those in authority are required to enforce the law and defend the country. All these may require violence.

Yep. Romans 13:4 allows for the government to use violence for justice's sake.

Are we seriously just going to have a "Scripture Off"?

As they persisted with their question, he straightened up and said, 'Let the one among you who is guiltless be the first to throw a stone at her.'

'You have heard how it was said to our ancestors, You shall not kill; and if anyone does kill he must answer for it before the court. But I say this to you, anyone who is angry with a brother will answer for it before the court; anyone who calls a brother "Fool" will answer for it before the Sanhedrin; and anyone who calls him "Traitor" will answer for it in hell fire.

'You have heard how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I say this to you: offer no resistance to the wicked. On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other as well

'You have heard how it was said, You will love your neighbour and hate your enemy. But I say this to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you; so that you may be children of your Father in heaven, for he causes his sun to rise on the bad as well as the good, and sends down rain to fall on the upright and the wicked alike. For if you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Do not even the tax collectors do as much? And if you save your greetings for your brothers, are you doing anything exceptional? Do not even the gentiles do as much? You must therefore be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.'

Here is a saying that you can rely on and nobody should doubt: that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. I myself am the greatest of them; and if mercy has been shown to me, it is because Jesus Christ meant to make me the leading example of his inexhaustible patience for all the other people who were later to trust in him for eternal life.

'If the wicked, however, renounces all the sins he has committed, respects my laws and is law-abiding and upright, he will most certainly live; he will not die. None of the crimes he committed will be remembered against him from then on; he will most certainly live because of his upright actions. Would I take pleasure in the death of the wicked -- declares the Lord Yahweh -- and not prefer to see him renounce his wickedness and live?

That's more scriptures than you!!!  I win!!! Right? Isn't that how it works? 

Well, none of your passages as any relevance to Jonathan's point. So, no, you do not win.

[lovesupreme]

I don't think you can apply the same standards to individuals and to the State. Individually, we are required to turn the other cheek and not return evil for evil. But we are also required to protect and defend each other, and those in authority are required to enforce the law and defend the country. All these may require violence.

Yep. Romans 13:4 allows for the government to use violence for justice's sake.

Are we seriously just going to have a "Scripture Off"?

As they persisted with their question, he straightened up and said, 'Let the one among you who is guiltless be the first to throw a stone at her.'

'You have heard how it was said to our ancestors, You shall not kill; and if anyone does kill he must answer for it before the court. But I say this to you, anyone who is angry with a brother will answer for it before the court; anyone who calls a brother "Fool" will answer for it before the Sanhedrin; and anyone who calls him "Traitor" will answer for it in hell fire.

'You have heard how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I say this to you: offer no resistance to the wicked. On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other as well

'You have heard how it was said, You will love your neighbour and hate your enemy. But I say this to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you; so that you may be children of your Father in heaven, for he causes his sun to rise on the bad as well as the good, and sends down rain to fall on the upright and the wicked alike. For if you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Do not even the tax collectors do as much? And if you save your greetings for your brothers, are you doing anything exceptional? Do not even the gentiles do as much? You must therefore be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.'

Here is a saying that you can rely on and nobody should doubt: that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. I myself am the greatest of them; and if mercy has been shown to me, it is because Jesus Christ meant to make me the leading example of his inexhaustible patience for all the other people who were later to trust in him for eternal life.

'If the wicked, however, renounces all the sins he has committed, respects my laws and is law-abiding and upright, he will most certainly live; he will not die. None of the crimes he committed will be remembered against him from then on; he will most certainly live because of his upright actions. Would I take pleasure in the death of the wicked -- declares the Lord Yahweh -- and not prefer to see him renounce his wickedness and live?

That's more scriptures than you!!!  I win!!! Right? Isn't that how it works? 

Well, none of your passages as any relevance to Jonathan's point. So, no, you do not win.

They're relevant to the topic. Sorry, I was never a protestant so I don't understand how these things work.

[Shanghaiski]

Let us pray that the guy repents.

I'll pray for that, but I sure won't hold my breath.

My wife tells me that he looked absolutely shocked when he heard the verdict, as if he assumed he would get away with what he's done.

Well, who could blame him for being shocked, given the other crimes of like magnitude that happen with legal sanction every day?

[Shanghaiski]

This is quite close to where I live.  The facts of what happened are horrific.

Lord, have mercy.

From what I have heard of this case, the facts are such that if I were on the jury, I could probably support imposing the death penalty for this monster.

Is he a monster?  I was under the impression he was a human.

You are under the wrong impression, sorry.

So I guess the Orthodox Church threw out all that "I am the Chief of Sinners" stuff after I left?

I speak for myself. Quit with the holier than thou act. The man decapitated babies for a living. Sure he is human but I think the moniker of "monster" is apt.

But aren't you the "#1Sinner"?

Does that mean that only my sins are real? No. Infanticide is a sin.

[NicholasMyra]

Does that mean that only my sins are real? No. Infanticide is a sin.

And now he can't do it anymore.

So...

[Shanghaiski]

Sanctimonious rot at its best.  Yes, he is a human monster that should be executed in the same manner as those he killed.  I make NO apology for that feeling.  But then again, I can understand where you are coming from - a religious organization with no discernible moral code.

If you mean to imply that the Orthodox Church substitutes Baal and Ares for Christ, whereas the Anglican Church does not, I would have to disagree.

A lot of people really enjoyed reading this story about the bad doctor. They got to feel outrage, which is one of the most pleasurable emotions a human being can experience. Quite the endorphin high. Really makes you feel on top of the world.

More sanctimony.

"Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill."

Please don't go there.

[Shanghaiski]

The death penalty exists because we're not able to take satisfaction in the eternal damnation of the wicked...just yet, anyways. And, who knows, we might be closer to it than we'd like, so we might as well be satisfied now.

[Jonathan Gress]

You know the phrase "there but for the Grace of God go I"? We should think of that when contemplating the fate of Dr Gosnell. We may support harsh penalties against such heinous crimes, but whatever he has done, he remains human. This is important for us to know because any of us could have done the same thing, if we had been exposed to the same temptations. He made the wrong choice, but how can you be so sure you would have made the right choice? We should be grateful that Christ hasn't seen fit to expose us to similar temptations and risk our souls.

[montalban]

I am opposed to the death penalty in all situations. 

As am I

As Christians, we ought to be quick to show mercy and slow to pass harsh judgements on others, even if they committed horrific acts.  Perhaps the rest of his life in prison will give him much needed time to reflect on the sins he committed and live the remainder of his life in repentance.  He may not be showing sorrow for his actions now, but none of us know how God might work on his heart.

Let us commit the memories of the children and woman who died to Christ.

It makes no sense to say "We're against killing (abortion) BUT we're for killing (death penalty)" when the reasons for being against abortion rest on it being the taking of the life of a human being

[montalban]

You realize, of course, that even if Gosnell is sentenced to death, he will probably die on death row before the sentence is ever carried out.

Then you're argument is self-defeating

[montalban]

I'm perturbed that those who are in favor of the murder of this doctor are disparagingly calling their opponents "holier than thou" or "sanctimonious." This has nothing to do with the saintliness (or false saintliness) of anyone. It's a basic Christian belief to love your enemies. This includes not only your next door neighbor whose dog keeps digging up your rhododendrons, but extends even to adulterers, thieves, and murderers.

I don't see how the "righteous" vengeance that some of you are promoting is compatible with the teachings of Our Lord.

It's certainly appropriate to be disgusted and horrified by this, but to demand retribution at the hands of man? I think that crosses the line from holy suffering to sinful, barbaric bloodlust.

Of course, this is not an argument I intend to somehow "win." I cannot fully control my own desires, much less the desires of others. But I would ask that those with anger turn to prayer, and ask God that those who require repentance repent, that the lives of innocents be spared, and that this crazy mixed up world wakes up and sees fully the atrocities that it commits. If that request is too "sanctimonious" for you, I apologize. I am only advocating what I was catechized to advocate.

Strictly speaking the death penalty is not murder.

Murder is an unlawful killing.

People can be lawfully killed, such as in a time of war one can shoot one's enemy

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

My thoughts here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,51483.msg923477.html#msg923477


Selam

[Punch]

The death penalty exists because we're not able to take satisfaction in the eternal damnation of the wicked...just yet, anyways. And, who knows, we might be closer to it than we'd like, so we might as well be satisfied now.

That is a bit complicated for me.  I am for the death penalty for other reasons.  First, I think that putting a human being in a cage for the rest of his life is cruel and unusual.  Second, a bullet is less expensive than 40 years of prison.  Unfortunately, our legal system has rendered the cost savings moot.  It probably is less expensive to cage someone these days.  So, I fall back to the first argument.  It disgusts me that we have made an industry out of caging human beings.  Satisfaction has little to do with the matter.  What is there to be satisfied about?  If satisfaction were part of the equation, I would be more satisfied knowing that he is going to get a lot of "sweet loving" in the big house.  For my part it is a rather simple matter.  He is found guilty.  He shows no remorse.  He will not be let back into society for probably the rest of his life.  Shoot him and be done with it.