Medical Procedure

[packsaddle]

The answer: Yes, I do not.

I also don't share in the responsibility when a family and their physicians privately decide to pull the plug on an infirmed relative.

I don't share the responsibility when individuals privately decide to employ birth control for themselves.

I DO share the responsibility when society of which I am part collectively decides to kill one of its members.

 

To all respondents:

SCOUTER-Terry has requested observance of decorum. I think it probably applies more to this thread than some others. Here is a suggestion:

Instead of just stating your disagreement with my view or someone else's, explain your views in ways that tackle the hard questions. I am open to reasonable suggestions and welcome them. I also left plenty of openings. For example, I mentioned that I don't recognize a 'line' denoting the point at which life begins. As I understand it, my view on this is contrary to the view of most persons on either side of the issue. Yet there was no response to this observation - from either side. I should note that I hold this view not because I 'know' when life begins, rather it means that for lack of better evidence, and based on my direct observations, I assume that human (all?) life is a continuum. I'm the guy who DOESN'T discriminate against haploid life - I consider those cells to be alive as well (H'mm, reminds me of a Monty Python song). If someone HAS a good idea of when life begins during the reproductive process, tell me. Someone out there must think they know where the line should exist. Give me your reasons, your evidence. I enjoy learning. Like I said, just for example. Or is this too difficult?

 

Otherwise, I assume that the Catholic Church is at least (as I have already mentioned) consistent. My observation about popular forms of birth control resulting in abortions is correct. Not a single objection to that has been registered here so far either, so I assume you all are aware of this. (another opening)

And therefore, anyone so passionately opposed to abortion should also be passionately opposed to those popular forms of birth control. H'mmmm? And reject their use. H'mmmm?

 

For the absolutists who do oppose and reject such, what is your decision on situations that threaten the life of the woman? Which human do you murder? The mother? The fetus? Both? Remember, you want this responsibility.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[packsaddle]

bsat4jb, I almost forgot.

"There are parts of Leviticus and the Torah that dictate methods of sacrifice and ceremony to worship God which no longer apply to Christians, or anyone else for that matter,..."

I'll have to check with some of my Jewish friends to be sure but I think they would disagree with that 'anyone else' comment.

[Fat Old Guy]

", Do you advocate following, to the letter, everything mandated in Leviticus? The Torah? Or just the parts you like? "

 

I like the part that says that if you have a disobedient child, you should take him to the elders and say, "This is my disobedient child, put him to death." I'll bet that they didn't have much back talk back then. :-)

[bsat4jb]

Packsaddle,

Your right, anyone who follows the Jewish religion(Judaeism?) would probably disagree with me. But from what I understand they also don't believe that Jesus was and is the one and only Son of God, so I disagree with them on some very major points.

 

BTW, I would be glad to discuss this with you, but please don't hijack this thread.

 

On birth control, I have never really thought about it or had an opinion, but you make a good point.

 

FOG,

Are you hinting at something... :-)(This message has been edited by bsat4jb)(This message has been edited by bsat4jb)(This message has been edited by bsat4jb)

[Rooster7]

Just to fan this fire (shame on me)...

 

There's actually two distinct arguments that surround the death penalty debate. Many folks don't separate them, which can be a real pain when it comes to discussing it in a logical manner.

 

Supposition #1: The death penalty is wrong because a "civilized society" should never kill criminals.

 

Supposition #2: The death penalty is wrong because the government could inadvertently kill an innocent man.

 

I disagree with Supposition #1. I believe a "civilized society" has an obligation to protect its citizenry. The death penalty sends a message to those who would contemplate murder, and prevents convicted murders from repeating their crime.

 

I understand the risk associated with Supposition #2. I believe we can trust our government to take this risk seriously. Furthermore, as long as we live in the world we live in, where men (and women) are so willing and able to rob, beat, rape, and murder for their amusement and gain, we need to take that risk.

 

Which brings me back to abortion. Abortion is simply the murder of a innocent child - 99% of the time as a matter of convenience to the mother (and/or father). Do these two issues really have anything in common? I'm not convinced.

[Fat Old Guy]

"FOG,

Are you hinting at something... :-)"

 

Mebbe, mebbe not. There's much to be said for that system. Even the worst kid in the world would mow the lawn when told if he knew that he would be stoned to death instead of being grounded.

[kasane]

"There's much to be said for that system". I can only hope your tongue was firmly-in-cheek when you stated this.

 

New Delhi July 9. An HIV-infected woman in Kuppam of Chittoor district was stoned to death on July 4 [2003].

 

Stoning in Iran, The Washington Times, February 27 (this was dated about 1997)

"The condemned are wrapped head to foot in white shrouds and buried up to their waists.

 

"Then the stoning begins. The stones are specifically chosen so they are large enough to cause pain, but not so large as to kill the condemned immediately. They are guaranteed a slow, torturous death. Sometimes their children are forced to watch. Their offense is usually adultery."

 

The penalty for adultery under Article 83 of the penal code [in Iran], called the Law of Hodoud is flogging (100 lashes of the whip) for unmarried male and female offenders. Married offenders may be punished by stoning regardless of their gender, but the method laid down for a man involves his burial up to his waist, and for a woman up to her neck (article 102). The law provides that if a person who is to be stoned manages to escape, he or she will be allowed to go free. Since it is easier for a man to escape, this discrimination literally becomes a matter of life and death.

 

Article 104 of the Law of Hodoud provides that the stones should not be so large that a person dies after being hit with two of them, nor so small as to be defined as pebbles, but must cause severe injury. This makes it clear that the purpose of stoning is to inflict grievous pain on the victim, in a process leading to his or her slow death."

 

I want to point out thought that the Koran does not sanction this. It is how it is "interpreted" by local religious leaders. What makes this hideous crime even more abhorrent is that it is carried out under the name of Islam. The Quran and the Prophet of Islam despised such behavior. On the contrary, in the Quran and the Prophet's traditions, such barbarism is denounced. The Prophet did his utmost to eradicate backward traditions, including stoning, which victimized women."

 

I guess even the worst behaved person in the world, would not do ANYTHING to offend anyone, if the penalty was this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kayakinmom]

"Even the worst kid in the world would mow the lawn when told if he knew that he would be stoned to death instead of being grounded."

 

A bit off topic but when I was doing research today about Thanksgiving I discovered how life was for Pilgrim children. They OBEYED. If they did not, they were put in those big wooden things with their head and arms through it! I had always assumed those were for prisoners or "bad people". NOPE! They were for bad children.

 

[Fat Old Guy]

With few exceptions, the threat of behavior does prevent crime.

 

You may think that it is horribe but, in reality, adultry is pretty severe, except to the modern western world. Think about what an adulterous wife can do. She has the possibility of making her husband raise child that is not his, thereby decreasing the chances of her husbands genes surviving also allowing his property to be inherited by someone not of his loings. There is also the idea of breaking a vow, promises not just to each other but to God.

 

Of course, today we have adultry being sanctioned by the White House and our role models in Hollywood.

[kasane]

Websters defines adultery as voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse. The emphasis is on voluntary. However you can then put a spin on it that even rape is adultery (which is still done in many parts of this world). Then you end up with the case of this woman:

 

"Zafran Bibi walked into the police station in the village of Kerri Sheikhan, deep in the valleys of Pakistan's North West Frontier, and gave a harrowing account of how she had been raped by a neighbour.

Medical tests were ordered, witnesses questioned and a trial was held. Defence lawyers were called in. But Pakistan's archaic legal system, a mix of secular and Islamic codes, offers little protection for women.

 

Bibi, 28, was convicted of adultery under Islamic laws which many regard as deeply prejudicial. Last month, a year after she reported the rape, a judge sentenced her to death by stoning."

 

So if we follow this thread through its many twists and turns, we can come to the conclusion that to prevent abortion (especially those pregancies from rape, sexual assault and adultery) we must confine the woman or girl until she gives birth and then take her out and stone her to death for adultery. That will show em! Even better, any one who has premarital sex or been accused of it can also be included.

 

As a matter of fact, it can be a family affair, since the family of the stoning victim must be present at the stoning and cast the stones. Those of you who have college age daughters who might have been date raped at college can save a bundle on tuition.

 

That will keep your daughters and wives home at night (and during the day). Your wives and daughters cannot be left in the company or presence of any male that is not a relative. As a matter of fact, she'd better cover up her tempting looks as well.

 

 

 

 

[Rooster7]

kasane,

 

Somewhere between point 'A' and point 'B', you lost me. So what exactly are you trying to say? "If you're anti-abortion, you must be pro-stoning"??? Let's try to connect some dots here...shall we?

[gsmom]

"Supposition #1: The death penalty is wrong because a "civilized society" should never kill criminals.

 

Supposition #2: The death penalty is wrong because the government could inadvertently kill an innocent man.

 

I disagree with Supposition #1. I believe a "civilized society" has an obligation to protect its citizenry. The death penalty sends a message to those who would contemplate murder, and prevents convicted murders from repeating their crime.

 

I understand the risk associated with Supposition #2. I believe we can trust our government to take this risk seriously. Furthermore, as long as we live in the world we live in, where men (and women) are so willing and able to rob, beat, rape, and murder for their amusement and gain, we need to take that risk. "

 

I believe a civilized society can protect itself by locking someone up for life. Studies have shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime.

 

Having said that, however, I think that Supposition 2 offers the strongest argument against the death penalty. We have in fact put to death innocent people. This is simply unacceptable. Even if you trusted that all prosecutors and police do the right thing all the time (and not all of them do), the system is imperfect. Innocent people have been and will be convicted. The death penalty is irreversible. Life in prison is not.

 

 

[RobK]

 

"Studies have shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime."

 

100% of people executed for murder never murdered again. Sounds like an effective deterrent to me. Studies have also shown that most murderers have committed more than one murder. If they're executed after the first murder, they are absolutely prevented from murdering again.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Rob, I see you are in Lafayette, Go you Boilermakers, (I know, technicaly Purdue is in West Lafayette)

 

A little question, a few years back one of your neighboring states (Illinois) reached national attention for having some outlandish number of innocent people on death row, or something like that, do you remember the particulars?

[Fat Old Guy]

""Zafran Bibi walked into the police station in the village of Kerri Sheikhan, deep in the valleys of Pakistan's North West Frontier, and gave a harrowing account of how she had been raped by a neighbour."

 

That was her claim. Obviously her assailant convinced the authorities differently. Are we to believe her simply because she's a woman?

 

According to an article that I read on "date rape," the wacko femisists hold that it is "rape" if a girl has sex and regrets it the next day or even a week later.