Teen stabs her newborn over 100 times, throws her in garbage...

[SpitFire40]

I wish people would stop posting in this thread so I don't have to read the title everytime I hit up CP.

It's quite the buzzkill.

[PYroMaNiaC]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Wow has this thread ever changed since I last dropped in. Where'd all this religous banter stem from?

Does this girl deserve to be executed or not? The pro side has God saying "do it' the con side has God saying "NO! I love her."

And CalgaryBorn claims God isn't confusing.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yep, but IIRC it is NOT allowed as a "sign" of insanity.

Rage is not a defense.

IIRC? Have you some personal experience with institutionalized insanity?
I'm just saying that a lot of people are complaining about people who plead insanity and labelling a crime as something when sometimes it's just a crime I get that. But in this case I think she's frickin nuts. Otherwise why are there places where the criminally insane are kept? Because it exists and there are different levels.
Again not saying I'm expert, but isn't post partum depression an official diagnosis. That's the sort of thing I'm thinking. I mean the natural state of a mother is not to carve up her offspring on a completely fundamental evolutionary level (sorry calgaryborn). So something is out of whack.
And again I'm not saying no punishment. Aren't there prisons for mental cases?

[Phanuthier]

What a thread

Have to say, I'm one of the few that side with FireFly. It's alot easier to pass judgement then to be in her shoes. Stabbign 100 times... does it really matter after you've stabbed the first time? After the first stab, the baby is dead. The other 100+ is a personal issues.

Not that I condone it or anything, I'm just more in a "I don't know what to say" so I don't really have anything to comment on. Not something I'd exactly like to think about too hard either

[transplant99]

IIRC? Have you some personal experience with institutionalized insanity?

heh...I guess it sounds somewhat like that, but it is something I read about at some point, though I cant recall if it was at a Federal level or Provincial/State level, or both.

I think she's frickin nuts.

I agree, but again that doesn't preclude her from punishment because her actions are considered "insane". I think most serial killers have to be nuts as well, in fact most planned murders see the perpetrator as crazy too, but that is not a defense in the sense they should be given counselling above and beyond punishment.

Capitol punishment is a very gray area for me. I certainly understand there are cases where such a decision could see someone losing their life when they shouldn't, but there are also other times when it is more than applicable and appropriate.

Again not saying I'm expert, but isn't post partum depression an official diagnosis

Absolutely, but no way will it be applied in this case. PPD is something that comes after tending to the child for a period of time. Not just by giving childbirth. Most PPD cases involve some sort of negligence of the childcare, not violent tendencies that cause physical harm/death.

This girl showed that she was well within her sane mind IMO when she chose to hide her pregnancy from her parents/authorities and chose to give birth on the floor of a laundry room at 3 AM. She knew she would be in trouble from her parents for getting pregnant is how I read that, and instead of being accountable and facing the consequences of her mistake, she chose a route that has now seen her charged with murdering her own child. Its heinous and I understand completely some of the reactions from people in this thread as to what her punishment should be.

The courts will sort it out and she will be given a pretty good shield of defense simply because of her age Im guessing, but she shouldn't be exonerated because she was scared/raging/young.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Jesus never called upon the government to cease administering law and order. If your going to imply that the standard we are personally called to
should be applied to the State then you must believe that the government should forgive all criminals for their first 490 offences. Fortunately the New Testament doesn't say that.

Hahahahha... this thread is funny. I'm kind of glad I went to bed now. I'll address this though.

If I kill someone for killing someone, I'm a killer too. You personally, are advocating the death of another. That person did not commit a crime against yourself, or the government for that matter. Yet you WANT her dead. I wasn't talking about whether or not the government should kill her, rather the fact that you want her dead.

Law and order can be administered without the girl dying. You, as a Christian, could also wish her healing. Her death would not give her healing. Instead, you wish her dead. Nice. Glad I don't follow your "brand" of Christianity.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Wow has this thread ever changed since I last dropped in. Where'd all this religous banter stem from?

Someone didn't know how to use PM's to ask a question, and now the train is off the tracks and we'll have 300 posts in this thing with 200+ having nothing to do with the original topic.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Someone didn't know how to use PM's to ask a question, and now the train is off the tracks and we'll have 300 posts in this thing with 200+ having nothing to do with the original topic.

Oh the irony.

[llama64]

For the most part, I agree with FireFly. Most of the responses to this story are one of utter disgust and outright inhumanity. There is no way a human being can honestly wish "torture", death, "anal cancer" or other such things on another without having some issues of their own. Really, it's disgusting.

But, about punishment, this girl committed out right murder. She was crazed out of her mind -- her mental capacity pushed beyond her limits in to utter irrationality. I do not believe that excuses her actions, but it does explain them somewhat. In societies view, she commited a crime, and must now face the penalty. The Law provides a standardized penalty that will be applied. No extras are required just because the nature of the crime offends peoples senses. I hope the jury in her case are filled with people who can seperate their emotion from their rationality and she is given a fair shake. I also hope that happens for anyone who encounters trouble and faces judgement by their peers. It is afterall the moral ideal that our society strives for...

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by PYroMaNiaC

Lets go back. I stated originally that the Bible makes no sense. That still holds true whether you use the "proto evangelium" or the Gospel according to Mathew, Mark , Luke and John. The fact remains that God contradicts himself in the Bible.

Let's look at your earliest mention of the Gospel, for example. If God already has the answer to humanity's problem in his son, why take so long? If he already knows what his son is going to teach, why not teach it himself? Why put forth two differnt sets of rules? Makes no sense.

Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus

What the Law taught mankind was God's standard and the impossibility of a person to keep it. The Law taught us that we are sinners and we can't save ourselves. The whole basis of man made religions is earning approval or appeasement from a god/gods/godesses. The law leads us to Christ because it amplifies our need for a Savour.

Originally Posted by PYroMaNiaC

Also, these references that you make to the earliest Gospel do not refer to Christ. They tell us what is coming. They are predictions that will be fullfilled when Christ arrives. If God is all knowing, then the predictions should be pretty accurate, you'd think. I stand by my statement that Christianity is based on the New Testament. The fact that the New Testament was predicted shouldn't come as a surprise.

OK Christianity is based on the New Testament. That doesn't make the Old Testament irrelevant. Look at the amount of quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament. The writers of the New Testament understood who God was in light of the Old Testament as well as through their contact with the Son of God. They found no conflict between the two. It's like people who protray Jesus as some sort of cross between a marshmellow and a hippy. They read what he says about love and what great love he showed the world but, ignore the fact that he taught about judgement and hell more than heaven. Moreover, he is going to be that Judge.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Hahahahha... this thread is funny. I'm kind of glad I went to bed now. I'll address this though.

If I kill someone for killing someone, I'm a killer too. You personally, are advocating the death of another. That person did not commit a crime against yourself, or the government for that matter. Yet you WANT her dead. I wasn't talking about whether or not the government should kill her, rather the fact that you want her dead.

What I said just before you questioned my Christianity was I believed that all murderers should be executed. I never implied I wanted her dead in particular. I just believe society would be better off if the law was cut and dry. This business of trying to weigh the motives or figure out what was going through their head is messy and doesn't lead to justice being done.

I disagree with your contention that we should punish to bring closure to the family. That isn't justice. You take a life; You forfeit your life. That's justice.

Originally Posted by FireFly

Law and order can be administered without the girl dying. You, as a Christian, could also wish her healing. Her death would not give her healing. Instead, you wish her dead. Nice. Glad I don't follow your "brand" of Christianity.

Anything less that capital punishment lowers the value of the life she took. If she gets 10 years then that childs life is worth 10 years of confinement ect. My desire for this young women is that she gets things right with God today. Would God forgive her? Of course but, that doesn't change the obligation of the law. Jesus forgave the thief on the cross but, he didn't call for his release or use His power to free him.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Wow has this thread ever changed since I last dropped in. Where'd all this religous banter stem from?

I stated that I thought all murderers(other than accidental homocide) should be executed. Firefly then questioned my "brand" of christianity and I naturally responded.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

What I said just before you questioned my Christianity was I believed that all murderers should be executed. I never implied I wanted her dead in particular. I just believe society would be better off if the law was cut and dry. This business of trying to weigh the motives or figure out what was going through their head is messy and doesn't lead to justice being done.

I disagree with your contention that we should punish to bring closure to the family. That isn't justice. You take a life; You forfeit your life. That's justice.



Anything less that capital punishment lowers the value of the life she took. If she gets 10 years then that childs life is worth 10 years of confinement ect. My desire for this young women is that she gets things right with God today. Would God forgive her? Of course but, that doesn't change the obligation of the law. Jesus forgave the thief on the cross but, he didn't call for his release or use His power to free him.

So it's okay, if the government takes your life, because the government can claim to do it in the name of God? All life is sacred. So if you kill my brother, and I kill you for that, is your death by my hand then justified because you took a life first? Well then my life needs to be taken too, doesn't it? What about the executioners?

Also, the quote you used previously regards using the sword against evil. Does this mean we should also still be cutting off the hands of theives? Where does it end? Let's get right down to it then, perhaps we should have government sanctioned female circumcision. After all, women are the evil temptresses.

You use parts of the Bible for your own purpose, not the good of mankind. You are arguing for an eye for eye. Which Jesus told us to throw out. She took a life, she deserves to forfeit hers. An eye for an eye. That's your justice.

[PYroMaNiaC]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus

What the Law taught mankind was God's standard and the impossibility of a person to keep it. The Law taught us that we are sinners and we can't save ourselves. The whole basis of man made religions is earning approval or appeasement from a god/gods/godesses. The law leads us to Christ because it amplifies our need for a Savour.

You're winning my argument for me here. I never questioned that God set down laws. I think the laws are flawed but, nonetheless, they are there. The laws are then changed with the arrival of Christ. Hence, two sets of laws. Which one takes authority over the other? The laws of Christ since God said that his rules would be changed when he came? If so, then Christ preached compassion and forgiveness - justice to be delivered by the ultimate power later since we cannot, in our own humanity, be really good at dispensing it ourselves. The girl then goes to prison or a criminally insane institution. If it's the original set of laws, why do the sending of the son? But the girl dies. I do not believe that God is irrational.

I don't believe that this is the thread to discuss the why's and how's of the validity of those laws, both sets, or the reasons behind them.

OK Christianity is based on the New Testament. That doesn't make the Old Testament irrelevant. Look at the amount of quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament. The writers of the New Testament understood who God was in light of the Old Testament as well as through their contact with the Son of God. They found no conflict between the two. It's like people who protray Jesus as some sort of cross between a marshmellow and a hippy. They read what he says about love and what great love he showed the world but, ignore the fact that he taught about judgement and hell more than heaven. Moreover, he is going to be that Judge.

I never stated that the Old Testament was irrelevant. Just conflicting. Jesus said that we should not judge or we will be judged ourselves. This is consistant with his message of love and compassion, but not consistant with the idea that execution is a viable resource for dealing with murderers by our goverment, which is comprised of humans with human fraility. Which is it? Governments that have authority through the power of God's say so or people with compassion who demonstrate the intention of learning from past mistake and correcting them?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Skyceman

Well if it were, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't of ever been considered as "the Greatest Song of All Time".

So just because a bunch of people think something is good makes it so? History is full of things that people used think were good, but we eventually matured past them. That's the "if everyone jumped off a bridge" logical fallacy.

Plus who says the Bible is the "Greatest Song of All Time"? You may think so, but the vast majority of people do not think so. So by your own standard the song fails.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

What I said just before you questioned my Christianity was I believed that all murderers should be executed. I never implied I wanted her dead in particular. I just believe society would be better off if the law was cut and dry. This business of trying to weigh the motives or figure out what was going through their head is messy and doesn't lead to justice being done.

So justice outweighs all other considerations?

What if it was attempted murder, does that still warrant murder in return? What if it was second degree murder? What if it was completely accidental but due to negligence?

The problem is you want the law to be cut and dry, but reality isn't cut and dry (though I do understand how you see it as such through the glasses of absolute faith).

And what's your definition of just?

EDIT: And trying to take motives out of it goes against what the Bible teaches; God looks at motives. Salvation isn't through any action but through an internal decision is it not?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Along the lines of what Anthony Cool said, and coupled with the fact that religious people like yourself are advocating things like execution because of your beliefs which are based on something I consider to not make sense. As you would understand I am not very comfortable with that.

I'm religious?

I've never stated my religious belief in this whole thread. Nor did I say I was religious.

I'm just pointing out things in the Bible as I understand it.

[Skyceman]

Originally Posted by photon

So just because a bunch of people think something is good makes it so? History is full of things that people used think were good, but we eventually matured past them. That's the "if everyone jumped off a bridge" logical fallacy.

Plus who says the Bible is the "Greatest Song of All Time"? You may think so, but the vast majority of people do not think so. So by your own standard the song fails.

Vast majority? 2.1 BILLION people worldwide think otherwise.

A book that has withstood the test of time would suggest there's alot more to it then some flash in the pan novel. We're talking 2000+ years here.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm religious?

I've never stated my religious belief in this whole thread. Nor did I say I was religious.

I'm just pointing out things in the Bible as I understand it.

This thread you haven't. But previous threads you have been on the defending side of religion. I just took it too assume that you are religious. Sorry if I misjudged, but you do come across as religious.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Skyceman

Vast majority? 2.1 BILLION people worldwide think otherwise.

A book that has withstood the test of time would suggest there's alot more to it then some flash in the pan novel. We're talking 2000+ years here.

There is over 6.5 billion people in the world. 2.1 billion is not a majority, and that figure of 2.1 billion people consists of several different sects of Christianity which have a very different take on the same book.

And as for the book with standing the test of time, I would have to disgree, but I am not going to argue with you about it as I am sure you don't care.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Burninator

This thread you haven't. But previous threads you have been on the defending side of religion. I just took it too assume that you are religious. Sorry if I misjudged, but you do come across as religious.

I understand certain aspects of religion, and realize why people believe it or have faith.

I realize that I may come across as religious, but I certainly don't classify myself that way.