Re: death penalty

mueckelein escribió:
On 17 Nov., 20:16, Thom Madura <Tommad...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
mueckelein wrote:
On 17 Nov., 10:12, Ron Hunter <rphun...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thom Madura wrote:
mueckelein wrote:
On 16 Nov., 00:14, Thom Madura <Tommad...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
mueckelein wrote:
On 15 Nov., 23:17, Green-Eyed Chris <cw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article
<92f6ff72-d758-4160-8ee3-37058b0db...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Aaron <aaron...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 15, 8:09 am, Thom Madura <Tommad...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I also try to consider the stand on abortion as one of the
major
deciding factors in a politician's overall suitability.
Which way?? You seem to come down on both sides of the issue!!
In which case Mitt Romney must be your candidate!! LOL
I often see both sides of an issue. I see no viable candidate
in the
upcoming presidential election. They are all unacceptable.
That's nice but you say that a candidate's stand on abortion is a
major deciding factor in your mind, yet I still have no idea which
view impresses you positively.
If it were up to me, abortion would be illegal unless medical
authority
indicated it dangerously threatened the life of the mother, and
after
that, it would be the joint decision of the mother and father.
In cases
of rape, it would be the mother's decision, alone.
Is that clear enough?
The current crop of 'presidential hopefuls' is about the most
pathetic I
have seen in my 65 years, on both sides of the 'aisle'. PATHETIC!
Abortion is either legal - or it is not - as far as I am
concerned. If
it is legal in one instance (Rape- or endangering a mother's life) -
then there is no reasonable reason why it should not be legal in
all cases.
LOL
I love the English language. Can there BE an "unreasonable
reason"? =)
If religion wants to enjoin its followers to something else -
that is
their perogative for their adherents - and those who believe in
it have
the right to follow their religious guidelines if they believe.
I take note that abortion is legal in the Jewish religion up to a
certain point - for instance.
However - those who are religious and give all those reasons for not
allowing abortion would clamor just as quickly if a different
religion
that they did not believe was FORCED upon them. There is nothing
stopping those people from doing what their religion espouses.
They have
no right to force their religious beliefs on others.
Once abortion is legal in any circumstance, there is no longer an
ability to "take the moral position" that is should not be
allowed in
others. An unwanted child is as just as any other reason.
I agree with you. I like Ron's stance on when people *should* seek
abortion (presented in his post as when it should be allowed), but I
don't think we can dictate that choice.
It isn't cheap to have an abortion. Perhaps if insurance covered it
only in certain cases (or maybe this is already the case), then the
problem of abortion as birth control really is a negligible one.
It isn't exactly good for the mother, either. So, bad for the mother,
bad for the wallet...surely somehow we can make it worthwhile only in
cases where the child truly is unwanted/birth truly is a danger to
the
mother.
Sometimes, I like it here in Germany. For decades, abortion has not
been
a topic in political campaigns. After certain formalities, every
insurance covers abortions including the socially indicated.
--
Chris
I agree that laws are there for everybody, not that the rich people
can afford to have an abortion and the poor ones must have the kids.
But I still stick to the oppinion that we have been given brains, and
I am convinced we got them to use them and not to make our heads
heavier! Maybe people should first think and then act, not first act
and then say " Damn, big trouble now!" and then society has to pay for
their lacking responsibility.
While that sounds good - it is being completely unrealistic on quite a
number of levels.
Obviously - criminals have brains too - and society has to pay for their
lacking responsibility - even if they think first and then act
illegally. Are you suggesting we not pay for law enforcement and trust
peoples "brains"?
Are you then suggesting that if people use their brains - they will
always do the "right" thing? (There is that word again) Of course - that
depends on whose point of view you have - but even the very "brainiest"
person is likely to do something that someone will not agree with out
there. However - what is right for you is not always going to be what is
right for me. The same can be said for essential goodness of what you
do. I don't think we all agree that terrorism is the proper way to wage
a Fatah for force a religion upon others - BUT there are some who insist
it is not only right - but it is required.
It is possible that the cost to society may be higher for an improperly
raised child - whether they were wanted or not. We still do not have
required lessons in parenting. Nor do we have a consensus on the proper
way to raise a child. Nor can we say that a person who was reasonably
raised will turn out good.
The most telling is that if BRAINS were the answer - then we would
logically elect the smartest people to our governments. It appears that
that might not always be the case (lol). Yet - if you ask - the majority
of voters will tell you that they "used their brains" in choosing a
candidate.
Noone , not me either, ever said that all people who use their brains
turn out to be "good" people who act with responsibility. Most famous
criminals were and are highly intelligent and educated. They need
their brains for their "success".
I said if people thought more what they did they could avoid unplanned
situations and their consequences, like pregnancies after a
thoughtless act of sexual intercourse. You could add drinking and
driving to it, too. People just do what they wish without thinking and
when it ends in the personal catastrophy then they burst out in tears
of regret and despair. But as long as nothing happens they don´t see a
reason to change their behavior - as long as nothing happens......
Fact is that we have 300.000 abortions a year here in Germany. Related
to that number we have 780.000 births. Every fourth baby is killed.
This is where we differ.
An abortion is not a Baby. The overwhelming majority of abortions are
done long before a fetus has viability in the real world. The percentage
of medication and evacuation abortions is about 97% in the US.
" Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 59% were
performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks." CDC abortion
Surveilance - 2001.
This is clearly long before a fetus has any viability.
While we get caught up in the discussion on late term abortions of
various types - they are generally done based on the health of the
mother - and I am one who believes the mother has the decision - as you
believe as well.
Since this is NOT a religious discussion, a fetus is not a baby.
Is
that necessary?
Just to avoid misunderstandings: I don´t want to criminalise women who
decide to have an abortion - prison is no way to deal with them. These
women are in desperate situations and such a decision is often not
easy. Many women suffer from nightmares and feelings of deep guilt
afterwards, often for lifetime. That is more punishment for a
thoughtless act than I find adequate. But noone can take this decision
from the women. And once the abortion has been done there is no way
back. The baby is dead then. I don´t only want less babies killed, I
want less women to be in this incredibly weighing situation.
Therefore: first think, then act! That´s all.
From a pragmatic point of view, the fetus should be considered a 'baby'
when it has developed enough to be able to survive outside the mother
without extreme medical support. Somewhere around the 7th month. The
moral, ethical, religious, and psychological aspects are for the mother
and father to decide.
In Germany a baby was born a year ago after 23 weeks with a weight of
320 grams and a length of 7 inches. The mother had got contractions in
week 19 and had lost the amniotic fluid already then. The baby was in
intensive medical care for months - the little girl is now a year old
and absolutely healthy. Of course the little girl was very lucky.
Fact is though, that if the doctors or parents had not regarded this
little 7 inch thing there as a human being the girl wouldn´t live
anymore.
For short: where is the limit? When is a baby a baby and not some
piece of flesh in the eyes of some people? Which day is THE day that
makes the change? The date when a child has a chance to live moves
closer and closer to the date of conception due to development in
medical care. Many children who were bound to die twenty years ago
are hardly a problem nowadays. Does the date change according to
medical development? Is an embryo suddenly a baby if medical
development makes it possible to "breed" the children in an incubator
from the time of conception?
And why is it only this fetus, who is a only then human being if he
doesn´t need intensive medical treatment? Any other person is regarded
as a human being, no matter if he has some bad heart problem that
affords serious operations or has suffered a stroke and needs steady
intensive treatment for years. And what about coma - patients ? Noone
would deny these persons their personality then. And noone gives a
person the right to say, "no, that old man has no chance to live
without treatment, so I´ll kill him off, he´s not worth living". That
would be murder. Where is the difference? Humanity is not something we
are given by the generousity of other humans, it is something we have,
from the first moment of our existence.
In China they used to celebrate the date ( or the approximate date) of
conception and not the birthday. A baby was a baby from the moment of
conception. It is not a question of religion but of ethics. And that
is not necessarily the same.
1 - A baby is NOT a baby from the moment of conception. The word
specifically refers to after birth young. Before birth, they are a fetus
or an embryo. At least according to my dictionary.

2 - As I have noted, in countries where abortion is legal, 88% of them
happen in the first 13 weeks. That is clearly before Viability outside
the womb. 99% happen before the first 20 weeks are over as well. In
talking about 23 weeks - we are not talking about the vast majority of
Abortions. At the same time - you are picking one single example of a
birth at that point - statistics show that babies born that early rarely
survive and almost always have health or physical problems.

3 - Late term abortions are more likely to be because of the health of
the mother or the fetus - and the health of the mother is where I draw
no line. A living mother can always have another child or adopt. A dead
mother cannot raise her child.

Your discussion of an old man dying in the hospital has nothing to do
with abortion. The rights of someone who was already born are not in
question. Still - in some countries - certain treatments are not
available to people who have reached advanced age (Like resuscitation)
or have a reoccurance of cancer or other deadly diseases.

Of course there are medical definations for the different stadiums of
human development. If you reread my post you will see I made this
difference myself, when talking about the rights and laws on abortion
in Germany. Fact is though that I do not share the vision, that an
embryo, as not being capable of living outside the mothers uterus, is
not worth more than a piece of flesh. It IS no piece of flesh, and all
women who have gone through a miscarriage ( as I have a couple of
years ago) will agree with me.

I agree with you. A mother who has conceived a child with love would consider her son, even if it's just a couple of week old, as a human being. The problem is that, as I thin Toon pointed out before, they don't look human. Still, I think it's repulsive that a woman I know would call an embryo a "parasite she can get ride of if she wants to".

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: death penalty
    ... If it were up to me, abortion would be illegal unless medical ... it would be the joint decision of the mother and father. ... I take note that abortion is legal in the Jewish religion up to a ... Every fourth baby is killed. ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: death penalty
    ... If it were up to me, abortion would be illegal unless medical ... it would be the joint decision of the mother and father. ... I take note that abortion is legal in the Jewish religion up to a ... Every fourth baby is killed. ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: death penalty
    ... If it were up to me, abortion would be illegal unless medical ... it would be the joint decision of the mother and father. ... I take note that abortion is legal in the Jewish religion up to a ... Every fourth baby is killed. ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: death penalty
    ... If it were up to me, abortion would be illegal unless medical ... it would be the joint decision of the mother and father. ... I take note that abortion is legal in the Jewish religion up to a ... Every fourth baby is killed. ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: death penalty
    ... If it were up to me, abortion would be illegal unless ... it would be the joint decision of the mother and ... An abortion is not a Baby. ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)