Hey! Sorry I haven't posted in a week. It's cause I went to Canada and junk because it was April vacation. Well here's the debate topic for today... Steph sent it to me!
When does a person have the right to kill? Terrible injustice? Self defense? Revenge?
-Zoe
DO YOU REALLY LOVE JESUS CHRIST???
Today's Mass Readings
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(122)
- ► 08/31 - 09/07 (2)
- ► 06/08 - 06/15 (4)
- ► 06/01 - 06/08 (5)
- ► 05/25 - 06/01 (5)
- ► 05/18 - 05/25 (5)
- ► 05/11 - 05/18 (5)
- ► 05/04 - 05/11 (5)
- ▼ 04/27 - 05/04 (6)
- ► 04/13 - 04/20 (4)
- ► 04/06 - 04/13 (6)
- ► 03/30 - 04/06 (7)
- ► 03/23 - 03/30 (6)
- ► 03/16 - 03/23 (5)
- ► 03/09 - 03/16 (4)
- ► 03/02 - 03/09 (5)
- ► 02/24 - 03/02 (6)
- ► 02/17 - 02/24 (6)
- ► 02/10 - 02/17 (6)
- ► 02/03 - 02/10 (6)
- ► 01/27 - 02/03 (6)
- ► 01/20 - 01/27 (6)
- ► 01/13 - 01/20 (6)
- ► 01/06 - 01/13 (6)
-
►
2007
(30)
- ► 12/30 - 01/06 (5)
- ► 12/23 - 12/30 (1)
- ► 12/09 - 12/16 (3)
- ► 12/02 - 12/09 (6)
- ► 11/25 - 12/02 (7)
- ► 11/18 - 11/25 (6)
- ► 11/11 - 11/18 (2)
12 comments:
I think that a person only has the right to kill for self-defense. That means, if someone is coming towards you with a knife, you should defend yourself. If the only solution is to kill the other person...well, I think that's okay. Murdering out of revenge is spiteful and selfish. It solves no problems. Terrible injustice is the same thing for me. I agree that some people don't deserve the right to live. But I don't think that we have the right to play God either.
Good points Alexa! I agree with you. You should only have the right to kill in self defense. If you are killing someone for revenge, then that makes you as bad as the person you are getting revenge on.
So here is a question..... If there was a woman who was going to kill twenty inosent people, and the ONLY way of stopping her was to kill her, and you had the opertunity to do so, would you kill her?
This is a question for Zoe: Do all the debate topics have to be Christian related? I could send them to you and you can see what you think.
Hmm...that's an interesting question Roni. I'd have to say that that is kind of like a self-defense scenario. Even though it might not be you that she is going to kill, she is going to kill others, and you would be defending them. If killing is the ONLY way to stop her, then I would. That's actually what the police do, correct? Try to stop the killer in any way possible.
To answer roni's question: Yes, absolutely you have the right to kill the woman who is going to kill 20 people. It's what the police do. Take a life to save a life. I think most would agree that although any death is bad, one death is better than 20, especially when the one who dies is a murderer and the 20 would be innocent people.
Self defense is completely okay in my opinion. Revenge however is where I get tricky. I mean, say for instance there's a man who kidnapped a young girl and killed her. And what happens if the young girl's father came across this man in a dark alley? It's easy to say that he shouldn't kill him, and that he shouldn't take the law into his own hands, but to be perfectly honest myself, I'm not sure what I would do in such a situation.
I would forgive him and pity him because he has to live for the rest of his life in guilt.
Oh yeah, and I also agree that killing the potential murder even if you were not one of the 20 people would count as self-defense. Other than self-defense I don't think killing is ever okay, even in the case of a death penalty.
I agree with Kartik about the death penalty. It is NOT okay because it is about revenge. It is not self-defense and it is murder. About the whole back alley thing, I understand how difficult it would be to not kill him, but I still think that he shouldn't be murdered. Death for revenge may sound nice if you or someone you loved was hurt, but that still does not make it okay. Murder is murder. Killing the man would not solve a single problem. It would not heal anything.
I guess i agree that it's not okay to kill him, and it doesn't neccesarily make anything right. My point was, though, that it would be a challenging situation i hope i never have to be in
Yah, as much as I would like to kill her, in doing so I would be as bad as her. If I were to kill her, then I would cause sufering for those who cared about her. They should not be punished for something that was not there fault.
I agree completely with Roni.
*debate within a debate*
I saw this on law and order last night and i thought it tied in with this perfectly, so everyone please offer your opinion!
Okay. so there was this guy, and he killed two men with a a deadly strain of AIDS that can't be cured. He did this because one of the men had slept with his brother, and in turn given his brother the incurable AIDS and his brother died. The men were going to die very soon anyway, and the killer's defense was that he protected hundreds of men from getting AIDS who would have slept with the victims had they not been murdered.
Also, since the men were into meth, and they went to a club where everybody pretty much did meth and had sex (they said that when youre high on meth you can have sex for hours with a bunch of different people just cuz you have all that energy and stuff i guess), they amount of people who could have been infected could have been in the thousands.
THE QUESTION: was he right in killing these men, when he was saving many more? Or, since the sex would have been consensual, would it have been both party's fault if they were infected?
i'll tell you guys the verdict later. :D i wanna hear what you think first!
No, I don't the think that the man was right to kill the guys that had AIDs. No matter what, he could not have known absolutely that the men with AIDs would infect others. Also, since the sex was consensual, it wasn't the same as murdering others. Yeah, they could have all been infected, but they were taking the risk by having sex with someone whom they didn't know their sexual background.
Post a Comment