Re: death penalty

Drusilla wrote:
Thom Madura escribió:
Drusilla wrote:
mueckelein escribió:
On 19 Nov., 01:18, Thom Madura <Tommad...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
mueckelein wrote:
On 17 Nov., 21:59, Thom Madura <Tommad...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
mueckelein wrote:
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.
You are again making a judgement based on your own single experience and
making a blanket statement that has NO basis in fact. Unless you have
statisitics to prove your statement - it only applies to YOU.
From an article from the NY times By S.G Stolberg
"You have to temper any discussion about viability because though you
may get into a 24-week period, or a 23-week period, a large portion of
those infants are going to have serious disabilities,'' Dr. Davidson said.
Most experts believe that the current limit of viability is 23 or 24
weeks into the normal 40-week term of pregnancy. Babies born at this
stage are known as micropreemies and are extremely fragile. The typical
micropreemie weighs 500 to 600 grams -- slightly more than a pound --
and can fit in the palm of a hand.
Over the past two decades, neonatologists have made remarkable strides
in keeping micropreemies alive. One of the biggest problems faced by the
tiniest newborns is underdevelopment of the lungs; before 23 or 24
weeks, capillaries have not yet moved close enough to the air sacs to
carry gases to and from the lung.
Doctors can now improve a newborn's ability to breathe by administering
synthetic lubricants, called surfactant, to help the lungs expand and
take in air. This development has represented a huge advance in the care
of micropreemies, but even so, their chances of survival can be slim.
According to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, fewer
than 40 percent of infants born from 23 to 25 weeks' gestation survive.
Moreover, Dr. William Taeusch, chief of pediatrics at San Francisco
General Hospital, said: ''That's strictly survival. That's getting out
of the hospital alive, usually at three months, at a cost of hundreds of
thousands of dollars. And if you get out of the hospital alive and you
haven't had major problems, then your chances of having a normal brain
are 90 percent.''
But according to the obstetrics and gynecology group, nearly 50 percent
of surviving children who weigh less than 750 grams at birth experience
moderate or severe disability, including blindness and cerebral palsy."
I have been talking about 99% of the abortions happen BEFORE week 20 -
88% happen before week 13. There has never been a successful birth at
This stage in development. There could not be one in a 13 week fetus -
they do not have lungs at that stage.
So - we are talking about 1% of all abortions happening after the 20th
week. Now - take away those based on the mother's health or fetal health
- and you are talking about far less than 1% of the abortions.
Sorry, I fear we are talking on a different level.
You needn´t tell me novels about the development of embryos, I´m quite
well informed. It was part of my education....Secondly my brother is a
paediatrician, working at the Clinics if the University of Ulm in the
ward for newborns including intensive care, and we talk quite often
about his job. But the chances of a child after birth are of no
importance to the subject.
You will not be able to answer ethical questions satisfyingly by
scienific knowledge. A human embryo is a human being. What else should
it be? And my oppinion is not singular!
So - many people thought the world was flat at one time - not just ONE.
They were wrong - and so are you. Until an embryo can live on its own -
it is NOT a human. Until it has lungs - it cannot breathe. Until it has
a digestive system - it cannot eat. Until it has eyes - it cannot see. I
have no problem with a mother who wants a child to think whatever they
want - even if it is wishful thinking on your part. And it IS.

Every women I know who has suffered a miscarriage, and there are a few
dozens of them ( it is always so that if you go through some not
uncommon fate that you will get to know a lot who share that fate with
you), agrees that it is the loss of a child.
Sorry - Your personal experience does not make it true. If You really
knew anything about science - You would know that.

However - YOU CHANGED THE SUBJECT - we were not talking about
miscarriages among women who were trying to get pregnant and have a
child. We were talking about Abortions - women who did not want a child.

AS I stated in another post - I am truly sorry for your loss - it is a
tragedy for a person who planned for and wanted a child to lose one - at
any level. I also stated that my first wife was expecting when she died
- unfortunately neither survived. If you didn't think I understood your
grief - think again.

However - neither experience has anything to do with abortions. They are
not remotely the same. The emotions are not the same. The circumstances
are not the same. Using your feelings - as a person who wanted a child -
and as a person who is against abortion - do not in any way change the
issue we were talking about - which was abortions.

AS I said - I believe that they should either be legal or not. Being a
little legal is like being a little pregnant. AS long as I agree that an
abortion MUST be an option in order to save the life/health of the
mother - then abortions must be legal. Nothing you say will make me
change my opinion of that issue. The reasons that anti-abortion people
give for being against abortions are generally either religious based -
or they choose singular issues they have a moral argument with - or they
try to change the subject into an area that does not apply - in order
to prove their moral high road. They use fear and intimidation to try to
force a woman to agree with their point of view - a warped sense of
morality.

As long as there is Liquor, there will be a small percentage of the
people who will abuse it - possibly for the wrong reasons. However - the
majority of people who drink some type of alcohol do not abuse it - and
drink responsibly. You will never hear about them in a news story - only
the abusers.

AS long as Abortions are legal - there are those nitwits who will not
act responsibly as well. They may actually cite the terrible reasons you
give for having an abortion - even if they didn't mean it. However - the
overwhelming majority of people who have abortions - do not do so
because they consider an embryo to just be a piece of flesh - or those
other reasons. They consider it to be a serious decision that required
them to weigh a lot of different factors. And in their cases - the
decision to have an abortion is neither immoral or wrong - and does not
make them Bad or unethical people for having had one.

If you do not want to have an abortion - that is YOUR decision and I
respect that. However - others have the right to make their own
decisions as well.

The circumstances are not the same concerning miscarriage and
abortion, I agree. But the embryo is the same, and for this growing
human being I see no difference in personality.
If a woman is having a baby and her boyfriend leaves her a week after
the birth ( which happened to a friend of mine) she cannot kill the
baby either. She´ll have the decision between raising it or giving it
for adoption. Why can a woman decide to have the embryo killed, and it
´s okay and morally unquestionable, but 7 months later it is of no
interest at all if she can cope with the baby, if she has a partner, a
home, enough money or the nerves for it. She will have to cope with
it. And most people manage this "problem" quite well. Those who don´t
care for their children and rather buy alcohol and cigarettes than
bread and milk for the kids are not the ones who ever took into
account to have an abortion. The decision to have an abortion requires
thinking and those people don´t think. They get one baby after the
other and don´t care what becomes of them.
My problem is: who gives anyone the right to decide about life or
death of an embryo? And where do you take the certainty to say an
embryo is not a person? When does a person have a soul, when his
personality. The baby cannot live without massive help for years after
his birth, without help it will die within 24 hours after the birth
from coldness, so why is it a personality as soon as it is born, but
24 hours before in his mother´s uterus it was not?

Well, that's the problem. We don't know enough about when an embryo becomes human. And while we don't know, many will say "it's not a human being, is some piece of flesh I have right to get ride of". I wonder what the people who call embryos "parasites" and laugh at us would say if in years to come, it's discovered that an embryo gets his/her soul and personality as soon as they're conceive. And if we, as a society will simply shrug and say "well, to bad we murdered all those human beings, isn't?"


You keep on bringing up the soul and personality. Why.

There is no basis for the existence of a "Soul". That is pure religious myth. The law cannot recognize it. Those who are religious can choose to believe what they want - but that is the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. I have a lot more evidence that the tooth fairy exists than a soul.

As far as personality - babies barely have one at birth - until they adjust to their surroundings.


And you continue to use the "piece of flesh" statement. That is just as repugnant. Anti- abortion people always like to use the worst case scenario when they bring up a situation. Abortion is a serious decision - and the overwhelming majority of them are not done "like changing a pair of socks" or for other stupid reasons. While there will always be people (a small minority) who abuse the system - that is simply not the case with most people - in any situation.

Your statement is nothing more than scare tactics based on religious nonsense. Religion has been responsible for some of the worst atrocities to humans that could possibly be described. Where was your god when the inquisition was going on - looking down from above and watching? Where is it now when terrorism in the name of a god is killing people everyday? The religious are the generally the most discriminating, judgmental people on earth - when their religions supposedly teach them to do neither.

Based on its record - religion should be banned - long beofre abortion should be.

Have you realised you're becoming what you criticize the most? The radical religion folks are always trying to impose religion statements everywhere, everything is related religion to them. And any hard situation. they want to solve it by quoting the Bible. Claiming that Religious should be banned is not different than saying "everyone should be religious". Religion works for some people, deal with it.

Sorry - But I cannot agree with that. If the purpose of religion is to guide your way to a charmed afterlife - then there is no way to prove that religion works for anyone. For some - religion may give some meaning to living a "good" life - but in general - one could do that on their own without the costs of religion.

Religion is a Mega-Billion dollar business that provides little clear benefit for the buck. WHile there are some who may find comfort and solace in religion - imagine the good that all that money could have done. Additional billions could have found a cure for cancer - or other diseases. They could have wiped out starvation = and spread education around the world. If is hard to justify the "good" that religion has done when you consider all the good that could have been done.



It works in
my country, and we have religion at schools and the President hears the Church - all of them - opinion. We're definitely not worst nor better than countries where is different.

OTOH, why would you think that THAT has to do with my concept of soul? I don't talk about the "immortal self that will go to heaven if you're good" and such. I NEVER meant to make a religion statement at all, that's you assuming I am. I don't see religion in the concept of consciousness that every single human has, although I am aware of the myth of God creating human - as every religious person is, although the smarter group will know is a myth.

And my position of abortion has nothing to do with religion, because I've already said that we shouldn't be radical about it, in some cases, abortions shouldn't be condemned nor punishment.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Doctor Assassinated in Church--Happy Now, Wingnuts??
    ... one already dead and the other with a life expectancy ... abortion just because they've decided they don't want a baby after all. ... baby from a healthy mother. ...  A "risk to the mother's health" exception is waaay too ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: 65,000 protest Obama coming to Notre Dame
    ... "rights" as the mother. ... to live your life or what YOU choose to do with your own body. ... abortion comes down to whether or not it is that taking of a human ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)
  • Re: death penalty
    ... 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. ... 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. ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: NBC - Question for Alito
    ... >abortion, are christians who think that because their religion teaches ... >that life begins at conception (although I have yet to have anyone show ... If religion weren't involved, most people would be ... You've used the kidney analogy before, ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: Jesus approves of abortion
    ... Judaism, the religion practiced by Jesus, approves of abortion if the ... life of the Mother is in danger. ... That's because the Jewish religion and culture is based on COMMON ... Only right wing nutcases will allow a Mother to die under such ...
    (rec.music.makers.trumpet)