A thread that we can't let die...or can we? (Page 2)

Really?  I'm pro-choice.....and I have a hard time separating the idea that is also makes me pro-abortion.  You can play all the word games, I don't care.  I know damn well what it means for me to be pro-choice. 

I suppose I can say I'm against abortion but I'm for a woman's right to make her own decisions regarding her body.....but I know what that means.

Agreed.  that's a Venn diagram with a TON of overlap.

pro life and pro death penalty...

Could one not make an argument that being pro life is supporting a person that has done nothing wrong except for being conceived by two people that decided it wasn't in THEIR best interested to be born vs. pro death penalty being about someone that knew the difference between right and wrong and knew the consequences and yet decided to go ahead and commit the act anyways???

I have never really though about it being a conflict before as one has stated, so I am throwing this out there to hear others thoughts...

jford - I'm pro-choice (which makes me pro-abortion by default, no? Even if I am personally against abortion) and against the death penalty......I don't feel conflicted either....but I can see how it should be a conflict, and I can understand how people could look at it that way.  BTW - your "conflict" makes more sense to me than mine does. LOL

So by that argument, I should be able to take narcotics if I want and should be able to prostitute myself if I want since it is my body???? It's my choice

Man, if there were ever two crimes that should be de-criminalized, in my mind, it's drugs and prostitution.  I don't think we have less of either just because they are illegal, but I'm positive we have more crime surrounding both because they are.

In understand your examples.....but I also know that by being pro-choice it comes with supporting abortion.  I can't fool myself.

As for the death penalty, I used to be a huge supporter of capital punishment because of the supposed preventative nature of it.  I'll also admit, that there was some "revenge" aspects in there.  You kill my friend, then I'm going to do everything I can to kill you.

However, after I got to experience our criminal justice system first hand I had my eyes opened as to how horrible people without means are treated it forever changed my view of the death penalty.
Sure, there are obvious cases where people are guilty no matter who their attorney is, but there are also people who are not guilty that cannot successfully defend themselves.

I know you don't support the death penalty CD, but things like this list of 146 people who have been wrongly convicted that were freed from death row make it hard for me to understand how anyone can support it anymore:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row

States have taken steps to make things better by requiring DNA evidence to push for the death penalty, but even that is flawed.  In Omaha, there was a case where the CSI dude was so convinced that a couple was guilty in a murder that HE planted DNA blood evidence in the victims car of the couple he thought was guilty.  Unfortunately for the CSI dude, the real criminals were caught and the framed couple were freed and it ultimately resulted in the CSI dude going to prison.The scary part is what would have happened if the real criminals were not caught?  The original suspects would be sitting on death row with DNA evidence supporting their conviction.

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy

Originally posted by tuwood

I have mixed feelings on euthanasia.  On one hand it's easy to simply say that all life is precious and we must extend it at all costs, but there's no question it's a lot more complex than that.

I think many of us have participated in a form of euthanasia, but just in more subtle ways.  My wife's grandma had terminal cancer and she refused to go through treatment because she was just "done".  Everyone in the family was very supportive of her and even bought her bottles of booze to help with the pain.  It was kind of funny at times because we were all contributing to her habit that everyone spent a lifetime trying to get her to quit.  When she died after a month or two it was really easy on the family and there was really no sadness like there usually is.  Everyone enjoyed how she got to choose how to go out and she went out with style.Sure, she didn't take a pill or something to end it and there was some suffering, but she did choose to go versus fighting to prolong the inevitable.

I think with terminal ill cases where people have less than 6 months to live (or however long) it makes a lot of sense and is truly humane.  However, there are various cases I've heard of around the world that are a little more difficult for me.  I recall a case in Europe where somebody was going blind and didn't want to deal with it so they ended their life.  Sure, it's a terrible thing to go through, but I just don't feel the same about a case like that.

Culturally I think America is still a long ways away from any form of euthanasia and sadly the politicians will be pushed by big money from the healthcare industry to keep it out of the laws for even longer.

btw, I'm a huge pro-life guy across the board and that includes the death penalty.  I never understood the people who are pro-life and pro death penalty.  That just doesn't make sense. 

Tony, mucho kudos on your last 3 sentences there, the rest is good too, but I didn't know you were anti-death penalty. Most anti-abortion folks I meet are pro-death penalty. That's why I love reading everybody's posts. There are so many facets to individuals out there. btw yes, agreed on that patient in Europe deciding on euthanasia when confronted with certain blindness. It sounds absolutely ridiculous to me...but then again, hopefully in whatever system we can agree on when it comes to laws, we could work some sort of required time so that it's not misguided and/or a spur of the moment thing.

So...on the other end, would most pro-abortion people also be pro-assisted suicide?  I'm asking because I never thought about it before.  It just seems to me that the two would go hand in hand with not telling someone what they can do with their body. Is that right?

I know for me, I'm firmly in the "your body, your consequences" camp.

Tough one, that's why I specified "most folks I've met..." as I don't know what the national polling averages are on the topics. It's actually kind of funny how religion and big politics (on both sides of the aisle) pick and choose sides of issues that seemingly run in complete opposition to one another. There's so much self-contradiction. On the Right, it's pro-life but pro-death penalty...on the Left it's pro-choice and get the government out of your doctor's office period, but then they typically support a lot of the intrusive nanny state laws. The list could go on and on. Libertarians are definitely more consistent on issues...but the only prob with Libertarians is with maintaining social order. In small groups, in more agrarian lands I think libertarianism could thrive...but in a nation of 320 million, with large urban areas, libertarianism would likely culminate in quite the violent result and would probably necessitate the polar opposite of libertarianism as martial law could make way for something much darker. Sorry I got off-topic there a bit. So, would more pro-choice folks be more pro-euthanasia? Yes, I'm gonna say they would. Most opposition I've seen to euthanasia comes from religious opposition as they see it as suicide. Pro-choice folks tend to be less religious so (in my opinion) they're more likely to support euthanasia. Is the person suffering needlessly? Is there ANY chance this person can enjoy their life? Even a portion of their life? Can they derive any joy from existing? Or is it just pain, misery, and a shell of a former self that is left after having been ravaged by progressive disease? So, the Right labels pro-euthanasia folks as being part of a Culture of Death. It's kind of like the Left saying the Right was "pushing granny off the cliff" by cutting Medicare funding. Each side demonizes the other to push their agenda. Gotta love it.

I always get a kick out of how people pick and choose things too.  I can't say I'm 100% innocent, but I try my best to be consistent in my beliefs and follow the science where applicable.  I also am humble enough to change my opinions on various topics when the science/facts point me elsewhere which is another trait that many people struggle with on both sides of issues.

As for religious folks not being pro-euthanasia I would agree that most people of faith do not support it, but it's rooted in centuries of various churches struggling with suicide and eternal life (ie. Heaven).  I am not a religious scholar by any means, but my understanding is that several churches believe that if you commit suicide that you will not go to Heaven.  My Mom used to talk about this when I was younger and she has always gone to a Lutheran church, but I don't know if it's a Lutheran thing.

However, the more I've studied the Bible and derived what it says, there is no question that suicide is a sin, but so is a lot of other things I do in my day to day life.  In other words, if I jump off a bridge and die (voluntarily) or look at a pretty girl jogging by (voluntarily) and then accidentally drive off a bridge and die I have killed myself by voluntarily partaking in sin with both situations.  As a christian I have accepted Jesus as my savior who forgives me of all sin past, present, and future, so it's really not an issue as far as salvation (going to Heaven).   Now, don't get me wrong, I don't have a license to sin because I should not ever settle in sin or want to sin, but I can absolutely fall into sin based on temptations in my life.

In Summary, for Christians, I think it's really about people having misgivings on the eternal implications of voluntarily ending their life.

I have a very interesting point of view when it comes to the abortion discussion.

I break it down in three areas:

1. When does life begin both legally and literally.  Obviously the moment of intercourse or insemination is the beginning of the process that starts the ball rolling for creating a baby, but we have to determine when the life actually begins.  I personally feel that life potential begins at conception, but true live (aka viability) is more towards the third trimester.  However, our courts have the very interesting challenge to actually determine from a legal standpoint as to when life truly begins from a legal standpoint and I feel they have consistently and correctly ruled that life begins (legally speaking) at the moment of birth.  In our society everything is based on our birth date, not our conception date.

2. When does an individual receive their individual rights? Similar to above, there are individual rights given to every person in America that are effective from their moment of birth onward.  Going back to the legal discussion again, the courts have to determine when legal rights begin and they have consistently and correctly identified the moment of birth as the point in time when individuals receive their rights.

3. Then, based on the above two when can and when should we allow a person to terminate the pregnancy based on the above thoughts?  This is where it gets a little more tricky because legally speaking there's no question that it all hinges on the moment of birth, and that's why we as a nation allow abortion to legally occur.

I personally am opposed to abortion across the board at any stage, but I truly recognize the legal challenges to "outlawing abortion" because it would be really difficult and it also doesn't take into account the rights of the mother or father which is a whole other discussion.

I feel a good balance is to have laws in place that don't allow the termination of "viable" babies because they have the ability to live outside of the mother.  Now, they don't have legal rights until they're outside but I just feel it's better.

I'm not picking on you directly JMK, but it always bothers me when I hear the "being born unwanted" argument because there are a lot of great people in our world who were born unwanted that did great things.  I don't know for sure, but you could argue that President Obama was unwanted when he was born, and he has gone on to do great things in his life.

No matter what, it's a really difficult topic and people have varying degrees of moral, ethical, and legal beliefs on the topic.  I am truly libertarian in that I recognize the legal rights of the women and when they begin for the unborn child.  However, I'm also very much conflicted as to the legal rights of the unborn viable kids because I feel they should get a shot in life.

Ironically the ones who attempt to point out other ego's typically do nothing more than show their own.  lol

I know I know, don't feed the troll. 

I've seen a lot of data and a few studies about the effects of abortion on poverty, crime, and social services.  I think it's very difficult for either side to correlate the two because there have been so many dynamics in play.  For example, within Mississippi they have the highest population of African Americans as a state and that ethnic group has the highest poverty levels nation wide.  So, just using those two data points we could logically deduce that Mississippi will have the most people per capita living in poverty without any abortion effect.
I'm sure there is some effect, but I think we can both agree that it would be nearly impossible to determine the percentage.

I read about that last night and thought of this thread.  It's really hard to think of a more cut and dry case for euthanasia than her story.  Personally, I get wrapped up emotionally because I think of all the potential this beautiful young woman had and think of it as being lost, but it's not the euthanasia that took her potential it was the cancer.