Life-and-death issues

[Ebowed]

In many places, attempting suicide is illegal.  But... if a person wants to kill themselves successfully, they do not need the help of the government.

[Gabu]

In many places, attempting suicide is illegal.  But... if a person wants to kill themselves successfully, they do not need the help of the government.

If they're in a hospital bed, under constant, unending pain, and unable to even get out of the bed, I would say they do.

If you want to get extremely morbidly objective, as well, fulfilling the person's wishes in that case would also likely substantially decrease medical costs.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hitler would have agreed with you on that.

Hitler also hated Communists.
Do you have a point?

[opebo]

That parental notification law seems like it would have universal support.  I'm not sure why it doesn't.  I don't tell any woman or man how to raise their kids, they don't tell me how to raise mine. 

I should think our objection to parental notification should be obvious - to protect the young woman from her family.  The great majority of parents in America would be somewhat abusive in a situation like this - recriminations, verbal abuse, character assassination, dimunition of self-esteem, and in many cases physical beatings would be the inevitable result.  It might even reach the disasterous extreme of preventing the abortion from taking place. 

No, to my mind the parent is basically a tyrant, and is as often, or more often, the enemy of youth than the benefactor.  I should like to protect the young woman from having to deal with the parents in this situation - simply put, if they were decent, non-abusive, open-minded, liberal parents, she would've already informed them of her own volition!

[dazzleman]

so, WWII doesn't count to AuH2O? Incidentally, that's really the only war in our nation's history that I would consider absolutely morally justifiable.

Not even close to being justifiable. By far the most inhumane war the US conducted.

Well let's see, first we were attacked by an imperial power, and then after declaring war on them we had war declared on us by imperial powers in Europe than were trying to kill off a large portion of the population, what's inhumane about that?

You're both right - and wrong.

WWII was morally justifiable, and would have been even if the Japanese hadn't been stupid enough to attack Pearl Harbor.  It would have been shirking our humane responsibilities to allow a combination of murderous nations like Germany and Japan to take over the world.

On the other hand, it was, necessarily, conducted in the most inhumane way of any war since.  The Germans started the trend, and got back what they deserved in good measure.  We had a set policy of "dehousing" German workers, which meant deliberately killing civilians in large numbers.  There was none of the obsession we have today with sparing non-combatants in enemy nations.  In World War II, each German civilian was considered an enemy.  The fire-bombing of Dresden was the deliberate killing of about 300,000 civilians, as the city served no military purpose.  The atomic bombs were dropped with the purpose of killing civilians.

I think it was necessary and served a greater good, given that those countries had started a horrible and murderous war and refused to surrender.  We couldn't pull any punches in destroying them.

[dazzleman]

To all of you anti-death penalty pro-abortionists,  You support killing innocent children, but not the worst of our society? Pretty sick I must say.

I agree, whatever mental gymnastics the liberals go through to try to justify this position.  The common thread is the "take no responsibility" attitude of liberals.  Killers should not really be responsible for their crimes, and abortion for them is simply a matter of personal convenience, of evading responsibility for careless sexual behavior.

[angus]

That parental notification law seems like it would have universal support.  I'm not sure why it doesn't.  I don't tell any woman or man how to raise their kids, they don't tell me how to raise mine. 

I should think our objection to parental notification should be obvious - to protect the young woman from her family.  The great majority of parents in America would be somewhat abusive in a situation like this - recriminations, verbal abuse, character assassination, dimunition of self-esteem, and in many cases physical beatings would be the inevitable result.  It might even reach the disasterous extreme of preventing the abortion from taking place. 

No, to my mind the parent is basically a tyrant, and is as often, or more often, the enemy of youth than the benefactor.  I should like to protect the young woman from having to deal with the parents in this situation - simply put, if they were decent, non-abusive, open-minded, liberal parents, she would've already informed them of her own volition!

I thank you for the response.  Clearly it's a considered and measured response.  I think we have to agree to disagree, because yours is predicated on the notion that mentally/emotionally undeveloped persons (i.e., children) are to be treated as citizens.  We have had many many threads concerning minors since I've been posting here.  I haven't changed my position on this.  I am legally and morally responsible for the nurturing of my children.  If it is my deeply held belief, for example, that copying off another person's work on an exam in school is immoral, then I shall try to pass that value on to my children.  I expect the state not to interfere.  I think that our species is so successful because we are so nurturing.  We are among the weakest at birth (say, compared to spiders or lizards) but among the stronest at maturity (because of our tremendous brains).  This strength comes from the passage of information.  But, in my expectation of the state not to interfere with my familial value system, I must avoid the hypocrisy of attempting to impose my value system on others.  For example, there are those who will allow their children to have motorcycles at a young age.  Such is the parents' prerogative.  Isn't that so?  And, whether a mother and father will encourage or discourage a child to terminate a pregnancy is really not a matter for the state.  Once the child becomes a legal adult, and has developed the mental capacity to make such decisions in the eyes of the law, then the choice is hers, but until then, her crimes may be charged to her parents, her behavior may reflect on her parents, and regulations are in the realm of the parents. 

You seem to want it both ways here.  You have stated in the past that the government is overregulating us.  Fantastic.  I'm with you there.  But now that overt regulation serves your purpose, you suddenly support it.  As I said, those who support this law clearly haven't thought it through.

[phk]

To all of you anti-death penalty pro-abortionists,  You support killing innocent children, but not the worst of our society? Pretty sick I must say.

I agree, whatever mental gymnastics the liberals go through to try to justify this position.  The common thread is the "take no responsibility" attitude of liberals.  Killers should not really be responsible for their crimes, and abortion for them is simply a matter of personal convenience, of evading responsibility for careless sexual behavior.

I believe both should be killed, its just a matter of regulating population.

Death Penalties and Abortions should be made as common as McDonalds.

[AuH2O]

No, Germans did not start the move to slaughter civilians in WW2. It was actually the British, who bombed civilian targets in Berlin in response to purely military actions by the Germans over British territory (note that Britain declared war on Germany, so actually the British were by far the most immoral actor). Hitler was naturally infuriated and responded with anti-civilian measures of his own; taking the high ground would have been wiser, if only because it would have made it more likely the Luftwaffe would prevail.

Any British civilians that died in WW2 have Churchill to thank, not Hiter.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No, Germans did not start the move to slaughter civilians in WW2.

Jews, Poles and Gypsies don't count as civilians now?

[opebo]

You seem to want it both ways here.  You have stated in the past that the government is overregulating us.  Fantastic.  I'm with you there.  But now that overt regulation serves your purpose, you suddenly support it.  As I said, those who support this law clearly haven't thought it through.

Not at all, you have it backwards - requiring parental notification is the regulatory position, while leaving young women and their doctors free to simply abort at will is the 'laissez-faire' position. 

[Brandon H]

Euthanasia: no
Human cloning: no
Death penalty for juveniles: Under some circumstances (such as bragging that you can't get the death penalty since you are a minor)
Death penalty for retarded: no
Death penalty for others: In some cases, but it is used too often.
Partial-birth abortion: Abortion should never be legal.
Parental consent for abortion: Abortion should never be legal.
Parental notification for abortion: Abortion should never be legal.
Abortion for rape and incest:  Abortion should never be legal.
Embryo abortion: Abortion should never be legal.
Fetus abortion: Abortion should never be legal.
Infanticide: no
"Morning after" pill: Abortion should never be legal.o
Withdraw troops from Afghanistan: no
Withdraw troops from Iraq: no
Lynching: Only if you witnessed a violent crime and the lynching is done within 60 seconds of that crime. Otherwise, no.
House bombing: no unless bin Laden is in the house.

[angus]

You seem to want it both ways here.  You have stated in the past that the government is overregulating us.  Fantastic.  I'm with you there.  But now that overt regulation serves your purpose, you suddenly support it.  As I said, those who support this law clearly haven't thought it through.

Not at all, you have it backwards - requiring parental notification is the regulatory position, while leaving young women and their doctors free to simply abort at will is the 'laissez-faire' position. 

superficially, good point.  however, the reasoning behind your explanation was one of protectionism, apparently.  And there's another problem, once again it hinges on the declaration that minors are full citizens.  In this view, say my kid comes over to your house and takes a big dump on your balcony and breaks all your windows.  Just for spite.  Most courts have held that I shall be held legally responsible for those damages.  By your reasoning, if we follow it through to its conclusion, you can collect no damages because a small child has no money. 

[Cashcow]

Euthanasia: Depends
Human cloning: Yes
Death penalty for juveniles: Hard labor is more efficient
Death penalty for retarded: No
Death penalty for others: Hard labor is more efficient
Partial-birth abortion: Probably not
Parental consent for abortion: Maybe
Parental notification for abortion: Maybe
Abortion for rape and incest: Absolutely
Embryo abortion: Yes
Fetus abortion: Yes
Infanticide: No
"Morning after" pill: Yes
Withdraw troops from Afghanistan: No
Withdraw troops from Iraq: No
Lynching: No
House bombing: No (what the hell?)

No, Germans did not start the move to slaughter civilians in WW2. It was actually the British, who bombed civilian targets in Berlin in response to purely military actions by the Germans over British territory (note that Britain declared war on Germany, so actually the British were by far the most immoral actor). Hitler was naturally infuriated and responded with anti-civilian measures of his own; taking the high ground would have been wiser, if only because it would have made it more likely the Luftwaffe would prevail.

Any British civilians that died in WW2 have Churchill to thank, not Hiter.

Your allegiance to Adolf Hitler is frightening. It's come to the point at which I actually get a kick out of reading your posts; I personally know people with views similar to yours who have been classified as mentally unstable.

[dazzleman]

No, Germans did not start the move to slaughter civilians in WW2. It was actually the British, who bombed civilian targets in Berlin in response to purely military actions by the Germans over British territory (note that Britain declared war on Germany, so actually the British were by far the most immoral actor). Hitler was naturally infuriated and responded with anti-civilian measures of his own; taking the high ground would have been wiser, if only because it would have made it more likely the Luftwaffe would prevail.

Any British civilians that died in WW2 have Churchill to thank, not Hiter.

You really have a distorted view of things.  Your defense of German atrocities is sickening.  Please don't call yourself a Republican; you are an embarrassment to the party.

[??????????]

No, Germans did not start the move to slaughter civilians in WW2. It was actually the British, who bombed civilian targets in Berlin in response to purely military actions by the Germans over British territory (note that Britain declared war on Germany, so actually the British were by far the most immoral actor). Hitler was naturally infuriated and responded with anti-civilian measures of his own; taking the high ground would have been wiser, if only because it would have made it more likely the Luftwaffe would prevail.

Any British civilians that died in WW2 have Churchill to thank, not Hiter.

You really have a distorted view of things.  Your defense of German atrocities is sickening.  Please don't call yourself a Republican; you are an embarrassment to the party.

Actually he is correct. The British DID begin bombing German civilians as retaliation for an accident that occured during a German bombing raid in London. I know what AuH20 is saying and I think you are misunderstanding him. He is referring to German vs British Civilians. Not Jews, Poles, etc. He is correct in his statements that the British were the first to initiate bombing civilian houses over Berlin and the rest of Germany during WW2.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, Germans did not start the move to slaughter civilians in WW2. It was actually the British, who bombed civilian targets in Berlin in response to purely military actions by the Germans over British territory (note that Britain declared war on Germany, so actually the British were by far the most immoral actor). Hitler was naturally infuriated and responded with anti-civilian measures of his own; taking the high ground would have been wiser, if only because it would have made it more likely the Luftwaffe would prevail.

Any British civilians that died in WW2 have Churchill to thank, not Hiter.

How exactly did Auschwitz help the Germans defend themselves from the British?

[??????????]

No, Germans did not start the move to slaughter civilians in WW2. It was actually the British, who bombed civilian targets in Berlin in response to purely military actions by the Germans over British territory (note that Britain declared war on Germany, so actually the British were by far the most immoral actor). Hitler was naturally infuriated and responded with anti-civilian measures of his own; taking the high ground would have been wiser, if only because it would have made it more likely the Luftwaffe would prevail.

Any British civilians that died in WW2 have Churchill to thank, not Hiter.

How exactly did Auschwitz help the Germans defend themselves from the British?

He's not even talking about the holocaust. Talking history on this board is so lame. If you even try to explain how things really happened you are either an a)Holocaust denier or b)Pro-slavery clansman.

[DanielX]

Euthanasia: No
Human cloning: No
Death penalty for juveniles: No, except possibly teens
Death penalty for retarded: No
Death penalty for others: Yes
Partial-birth abortion: No
Parental consent for abortion: No
Parental notification for abortion: Yes
Abortion for rape and incest: Yes
Embryo abortion: No, except for Rape and Incest
Fetus abortion: No, except if mother's life is in danger
Infanticide: NO!
"Morning after" pill: Yes, i guess
Withdraw troops from Afghanistan: No
Withdraw troops from Iraq: No
Lynching: No
House bombing: No

[opebo]

You seem to want it both ways here.  You have stated in the past that the government is overregulating us.  Fantastic.  I'm with you there.  But now that overt regulation serves your purpose, you suddenly support it.  As I said, those who support this law clearly haven't thought it through.

Not at all, you have it backwards - requiring parental notification is the regulatory position, while leaving young women and their doctors free to simply abort at will is the 'laissez-faire' position. 

superficially, good point.  however, the reasoning behind your explanation was one of protectionism, apparently.  And there's another problem, once again it hinges on the declaration that minors are full citizens.  In this view, say my kid comes over to your house and takes a big dump on your balcony and breaks all your windows.  Just for spite.  Most courts have held that I shall be held legally responsible for those damages.  By your reasoning, if we follow it through to its conclusion, you can collect no damages because a small child has no money. 

I disagree - there is no need to grant the minor full citizenship in order to provide them some compromise level of rights and protections.  I think we can judge that in certain areas it is reasonable to protect the individual rights of a 'child' (after all we're talking about post-pubescents here, not  9 year olds), and in other cases allow the young person some lower level of responsiblity.  For me the main issue is the near absolute, tyrannical power we allow parents over their children - in fact the very idea of child-abuse is fairly new.  In the case of the child damaging property, it is reasonable to hold the parent responsible, or to take the child away if the parent is incapable of controlling the child.  However in the case of abortion, it seems to me the potential damage from requiring parental notification and consent is so much greater than any potential benefit.  The only possible benefit I can see is that the more mature person may choose the doctor more carefully - we can deal with that problem easily enough (and I would argue already have) through professional regulation and malpractice lawsuits.

[dazzleman]

No, Germans did not start the move to slaughter civilians in WW2. It was actually the British, who bombed civilian targets in Berlin in response to purely military actions by the Germans over British territory (note that Britain declared war on Germany, so actually the British were by far the most immoral actor). Hitler was naturally infuriated and responded with anti-civilian measures of his own; taking the high ground would have been wiser, if only because it would have made it more likely the Luftwaffe would prevail.

Any British civilians that died in WW2 have Churchill to thank, not Hiter.

You really have a distorted view of things.  Your defense of German atrocities is sickening.  Please don't call yourself a Republican; you are an embarrassment to the party.

Actually he is correct. The British DID begin bombing German civilians as retaliation for an accident that occured during a German bombing raid in London. I know what AuH20 is saying and I think you are misunderstanding him. He is referring to German vs British Civilians. Not Jews, Poles, etc. He is correct in his statements that the British were the first to initiate bombing civilian houses over Berlin and the rest of Germany during WW2.

You're forgetting the fact that the London bombing was not the first German bombing of civilians in countries that had done nothing to them.  The Rotterdam bombing in Holland preceded it, as did the bombardment of Warsaw.  Germany started with bombing civilians in peaceful countries, and got back what it deserved in spades.  When I see the Germans whaling and moaning about the suffering they endured under allied bombing, it leaves me totally cold.

This defense of Germany is nuts.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, Germans did not start the move to slaughter civilians in WW2. It was actually the British, who bombed civilian targets in Berlin in response to purely military actions by the Germans over British territory (note that Britain declared war on Germany, so actually the British were by far the most immoral actor). Hitler was naturally infuriated and responded with anti-civilian measures of his own; taking the high ground would have been wiser, if only because it would have made it more likely the Luftwaffe would prevail.

Any British civilians that died in WW2 have Churchill to thank, not Hiter.

All Buchanan did was state blatantly obvious facts.

France and Britain needed an excuse to go to war with Germany. So they said they would "protect" Poland, who, by the way, was actually committing human rights violations against Germans stuck inside their country by Versailles.

Of course, they did sh**t for Poland. In fact, they didn't even attack Germany. And, actually, they violated their own treaty, because the Soviets also invaded Poland, which required them to declare war on the Soviets.

And the only reason Jews died in WW2, aside from the fairly large number that were serving as Soviet commisars and thus legally executed for crimes against humanity, is because Hitler knew he was going to lose.

Maybe if the US hadn't embargoed Japanese oil and the Allies hadn't ed Germany up the ass after a WWI Germany didn't start, 50 million people wouldn't have died. As it is, they did, and they did. And since the US and allies were a bunch of cowards, another 100 million died thanks to communism in Russia and Asia.

For the record John Ford's reply to the last one was "You're a in' Nazi, dude." so it's not as if only the left is holding these views.

[True Democrat]

Euthanasia: Yes
Human cloning: No
Death penalty for juveniles: No
Death penalty for retarded: No
Death penalty for others: Usually no, but terrorists and mass murderes (think BTK) are exceptions
Partial-birth abortion: No
Parental consent for abortion: Yes
Parental notification for abortion: Yes
Abortion for rape and incest: Yes
Embryo abortion: Yes
Fetus abortion: Hmm, what trimester is this?
Infanticide: NO!!!!!
"Morning after" pill: Yes
Withdraw troops from Afghanistan: No
Withdraw troops from Iraq: No, increase troop levels
Lynching: No
House bombing: No

[Jake]

under what conditions could you vote for me?

Almost none as I would never vote for you over any likely candidate for any office as few nominated could be as extreme as you, and if they were, I doubt you'd be running against them.

[Flying Dog]

Euthanasia:NO
Human cloning:NO
Death penalty for juveniles:YES
Death penalty for retarded:YES
Death penalty for others:YES
Partial-birth abortion:NO
Parental consent for abortion:YES
Parental notification for abortion:YES
Abortion for rape and incest:YES
Embryo abortion:NO
Fetus abortion:NO
Infanticide:NO
"Morning after" pill:YES
Withdraw troops from Afghanistan:NO
Withdraw troops from Iraq:YES
Lynching:NO
House bombing:NO