Abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia , page 4

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by Annee

---

That was not the intention as you are trying to imply. It does seem to be one of the three that many are choosing to center on the most though. I am not sure why that should bother you though as it was a part of the thread to start with and this is a discussion/debate board.


Raist

The 3 topic/questions are interesting and make for a good discussion. It seems a waste for this thread to get bogged down in yet another abortion debate.

I hope it can stay on track with all 3 topics.

Abortion debate does not bother me. I've had one. I can speak from actual experience - not idealistic lip service. Don't waste the thread.

reply to post by Annee

---

I agree that the three topics make for interesting discussion and debate.

But I think you are failing to see that the thread is not going off topic. The discussion and debate has been about all three topics. Some people have been more moved to speak about abortion others the death penalty or euthanasia.

I do not see one post being only about abortion or any of the others to be moving the thread off topic to one debate only. I think the only reasoning you have for this is I questioned the stance you gave for abortion. As of yet you have yet to explain how that thought would be any different than letting people kill anyone because they find them to not be viable.

We can even use this for euthanasia as a point if you like. If we start to find older people to be unviable we should kill them according to your point on abortion. So long as we believe they are not viable it is fine.

Again I pose the question. This is not taking the thread off topic as long as it is about the topic to begin with. It is not wasting the thread when one of the topics is being discussed. As you can see others posted one post on one subject and came back to post on the others. If anyone is trying to derail the thread it is you, due simply to your posting about this being only an abortion debate now when clearly it is not.

Raist

reply to post by Raist

---

You know, that is another interesting discussion topic that Annee brought up. If you noticed she stated that if you believe that abortion is the taking of a life then don't have one in the vein of "do no harm" if you don't then it is acceptable to have one. Then conversely you brought up the same of taking someone off life support, or mercy killings, or even...if someone is dying of malnutrition, etc.

This is probably a whole other thread topic but...

if you believe that we are spiritual beings and this physical being is but a shell then the taking of a life, any life, is almost a good thing. Like in Star Wars, at the end when Obi Wan allows Vader to kill him so that he "might become stronger than you could ever imagine".

If we really believed that, that this world is not the end...what is the big deal with killing?

reply to post by TheRedneck

---

Another excellent post.


I have to say I am at a point now that I would like to see some quick solutions as the proper solutions seem to be draining to say the least. But I do understand what you are talking about. So many times people just want justice before knowing what they want justice for (why I believe we are in a war right now that really is not “winnable” for either “side”), that or they want justice before knowing if they are after the right people. So to let you know I totally understand your view on that part when it comes to the death penalty.


I was once a fan of the death penalty and it held my full support. Due to much thinking and personal meditation though I started to think otherwise about the death penalty. Unlike most who argue against, I am not going to use the tired argument that it makes you no better than the person who committed the crime, I have a different view. My view is more of one that deals with spiritual issues and the soul. I do not feel it is my right to remove another life from the existence they have, aside from what would be self defense (this could include those in war or the police when they are posed with dangers). My thoughts are that we have one chance at this life (physical) and that each of us must lie in the beds we make.

Now saying all of that I have made it clear over the years and even at the start of this thread how I felt about those who would harm a child. I have a pretty hard heart when it comes to people of that sort, at least for the most part. I have stated many times over the years that I think they should be dealt a life of torture for their crimes. I understand that was morally reprehensible, that that was my stance. I want it to be clear that I have since the start of this thread due to more mediation and a story I was reading changed my view on that. I am not saying that I feel any sympathy for that type of person but that I might start to accept some apologies if offered. I understand that apologies and remorse are not going to right the wrong but they are a start. Those that show no remorse though will also not receive any acceptance in my life (at least not at this moment). I do think that a great many people including most of those who harm children should be removed from society and placed in an area that they could not escape and hurt others again. Either a manmade island or placing them on Antarctica. But as of now I would spare them the life of torture. Though a part of me still desires to see those who hurt children face such a life.

Saying all of that though. I also see that maybe mankind should take care of its disease the best way possible and remove it when it finds out about it. Meaning if someone were actually caught in the act I might be for a society that would kill, maim, or chose to justly convict the perpetrator immediately following the act. So if a guy was caught raping and murdering a woman the community could either immediately convict him or whatever. It is pointless to waste tax payer money on a joke trial when we know for certain the guilt of another. Nothing makes me sicker than hearing the “guilty until proven innocent” when there is solid proof and absolutely no doubt because they were caught red handed in the act.

If our justice system were perfect we would not have to worry about this. But because of the human factor it is as good as it will ever get. If we could ever get the perfect justice system we would no longer need it as mankind would have changed completely.

Raist

reply to post by missvicky

---

Interesting story on your view of abortion. If I may ask…what did your daughter choose?

As for the emotional scaring and anguish I would say it will be there regardless. The choice is not if the anguish will be there but what anguish you think you might be faced with after that and how you will work to overcome it. Make no mistake we can overcome anything we are faced with, it might take time and a lot of work but we can do that. There are also times we will want to give up but to do so will only crush us and even hurt those we love.

I am glad to see someone finally brought up the issue of anguish and emotions though. Because despite what most think there will be a great deal of left over feelings that will have to be dealt with. The real tragedy comes from making a decision without having all the information that one can get. I think a part of that information is to have an ultra sound myself.

The reason for that is because we can listen to people say the embryo/fetus/baby is this all day long, they can even show us nifty videos, pictures, and drawings, but the fact is the woman/girl will not be able to fully understand her own body until they see what is really in their body, not that of another person. Like when I go to the doctor about a broken bone or even cancer, they show me what is in my body so that I can see what my condition is and understand it better. If I am shown evidence from other peoples bodies it will not be as real as if I know for sure it is mine.

Saying that I also want to ask do you think there should be a cutoff point, barring of course a medical issue? Or should there be a free for all outlook on the issue?
I see no problem with the state taking charge of the child if abortions were to be restricted I personally would not expect anything but that. I could not see forcing someone to care for a child they did not want or afford. I would even say that the state should provide care while the mother is pregnant in such a case. Just as a mentioned the father should have a right to the decision and how he would have to pay for everything is he wanted the child, and that if the mother wanted it and the father did not it was on her after that point as well. I am all for those making the decision to carry the financial burden. You have my support for sure on that view.

Raist

reply to post by A Fortiori

---

Good point.

I think the big deal is if you believe there is something after this world you also believe there are consequences to your actions not only in this life but after it as well. At least that is my understanding of religions in general, and my thought (though I could be wrong) is that only those who have some religious belief to them think there is anything other than the life we currently have.

So to answer the question it would be wrong because you could possibly be punished. That punishment is viewed differently by each group as well and the length of the punishment.

I think if we bring belief into all aspects of things we would complicate things to the point that we would have anarchy. Examples would be, killing is fine as long as you believe a certain way, raping is okay as long as it is done in the name of a belief, or eating spam is a punishable offence.

Over time people have demonized Christians for the crusades because people killed in the name of God. While that might be true in the spoken view it is only true because man says it is. Many Muslims have been demonized for 9/11 because there were a few that held a more radical view than most others. In both examples they did it because they believed it was okay (they were wrong), what they did is no different than many killings going on today for any other reasons that is based on belief.

That idea seems more of a spiritual dealings with than any other reason. If we use the argument that we have life after this so that makes it okay we should also prepare for any punishment that might come after this life for each action we have.

If you read my last post to theredneck you will see my view on punishment for those who hurt children has changed in the last week. That is due for the most part because of mediation about what was just brought up in this post. I think there will be repercussions for each action I have in this life after I leave it. It does take things to a different topic but at the same time it can intertwine with it as well. After all as one poster pointed out two of the topics I mentioned are choice another is forced. The main premise for the thread is death and it coming through the hands of another. So I guess it would really depend on if you think this life is it or if we have more to come on how you think about each answer.

Raist

reply to post by Annee

---

If that is how it is then there is little point in responding further.

This thread is about abortion as well as the death penalty and euthanasia.

I am not sure how to make it more clear that discussing/debating even one of the topics of the thread is not taking off the original topic. Having said that I will say your response has been fully emotional and that it is a hot and touchy subject with you despite your earlier claim against that thought.

You seem to be fighting the topics of the thread, so go troll elsewhere. I will discuss/debate with others who will sit down and discuss/debate the issues at hand which again are abortion, the death penalty and euthanasia.

Good day.

Raist

reply to post by Raist

---

Well, but some of the early Christian religions, the gnostics for example, felt that we were trapped here by some awful trick. If you believed that, wouldn't death be liberation from that?

reply to post by Annee

---

I cannot control nor do I wish to control what other posters chose to make their post about.

I made a thread about abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia. You made a post. I questioned a part of that post just as I have made questions toward many other posts on this thread not centering on any particular of the three topics.

You never answered me just recently mentioned you talked about it in other threads regarding abortion. Do not answer my question forget I even ask. You did not even answer my last question regarding euthanasia. If you are here to troll go elsewhere and get off the topic of what this thread is or is not. If you want to discuss things in a rational manner at least have the courtesy to answer questions that are ask or try to remain on topic at least. You know the topic right? I’ll remind you again abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia.

The only emotion I am showing here is that I might as well be trying to explain this thread to a brick wall as it might listen to me better.

Raist

reply to post by A Fortiori

---

Ahh! But that is the key. They were not freeing anyone but others. Meaning they were not after helping but to take what was not theirs.

I am fine with listening to beliefs as I even have my own. But we cannot make every belief into a rule or there would be no rules. Some might enjoy that too much though so we would need laws against that as well.


If the belief that death was truly a release then would they not end their own life or allow others to end it for them? I believe that death will be a relief from the pains of life in a way myself, but I also feel for what it is good and bad.

I am speaking more of the most “recent” events though not the really early Christians. Another example would be the witch trials. People used beliefs as an excuse to fulfill their own desires. Even the conquering of the Americas was done for the desires of greed and had nothing to truly do with the spreading of Christianity.


Raist

reply to post by Raist

---

Raist,

Well I certainly understand how abortion and the other issues both you and I mentioned are very political. I do not think they originated that way though.

In my opinion they became such hot topic issues with the politicians is because of a few citizens and one or two politicians to start with. Then the other politicians realized that people felt strongly about them one way or the other and decided they could use that. Just like most use their beliefs religious wise to attract votes. I always doubt their true beliefs on religions as most are nothing more than career politicians who sold their soul years ago.

There is some degree of truth to this quote of yours above. However...there seems to be a political party apparatus which is constantly in gear behind the scenes and looking for one issue or another on which to capitalize for votes and control. Most of this capitalization has today become based/dependent on a template of victimization and guilt techniques.

Victimization was for many years cultivated by the talk show genre in grooming emotional train wreck voyeurs by Phil Donahue. Phil Donahue was to go on to spawn a whole genre of other talk show imitations and all of them waxing worse and worse in seducing the souls of bored idle viewers. However ..the body politic did not miss out on the political potential of this avenue to groom controllable, emotional, malleable, guaranteed voters..particularly in high electoral vote states and at the same time these states were at least half populated by women. Abortion became the number one issue on which these behind the scenes manipulators were to handle the new generation of emotional train wrecks.

Grooming emotional train wrecks through a television education...which is what much of public education has become today....guarantees an outcome of elections particularly as pertains to high electoral vote states.
And today's template is ...Victimization combined with guilt politics.

Now I am going to tell you a bit of something about abortion which I would never have realized on my own. It took a savvy woman to educate me on what happened over time.

What happened was not education per se...but instead technology which was and is to weaken the abortion stance for many women.

This science behind what is called sonograms or the method of using sound techniques to produce a photo of the unborn yet living fetus inside a woman's womb has worked heavily on the minds and souls of many women of conscience.

What many woman learned ...in spite of the political rhetoric so popular from "experts" was that there was something living in their womb. Prior to this technology they could hide behind the rhetoric, ignorance, and public education on this issue. When they saw theirs or their friends sonogram...it became suddenly stark and open ...ignorance could no longer suffice. It could not anymore be hidden behind the shadow of politics and a political public education/television education.

I am grateful to this day for the woman who awakened me to this concept. I would never have thought of it on my own. The sonogram changed much in this issue for many women of conscience. Hence this issue does not draw the political clout it did in years past. It has been eclipsed by other issues of the emotional/victim and guilt laden type....for power and control.

This pattern of Victimization and Guilt will continue. Only the application and techniques will vary. One needs only lift up the veneer to look underneath and see the hand behind it.

Hope this helps you and some of the readers.

Thanks,
Orangetom

reply to post by orangetom1999

---

Orangetom,

I cannot deny the use of the ultrasound in the abortion debate. I actually think it is a good idea to have women view them myself, at least for the education of what is really going on side.

But I think it was mostly developed to help the doctors better know the health of the baby. I might be wrong there but I think that is why it was actually developed. I do know that it is often used in the battle over abortion though. As I said I support its use for that.


There might be some solid facts to what you are saying; I am not discounting you at all. But I would really have to do the research for that sort of information to fully accept it as is. Again do not think that I am brushing you off I just have a difficult time taking things for the face value I see. Much of what you say makes sense and I can see it is happening but I am just not fully sure it started like that.

For the most part I think most had good intentions going into office but they soon left those in the dust. As the saying goes “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

I can certainly see how the talk show revolution has taken off and helped TPTB in many ways. They give them plenty of ideas to throw at voters, who are most often more than willing to gobble anything up that is attention grabbing. That is what makes a good deal of people idiots, nothing more than a fish biting down on the shiny lure given to them.

I will give what you have said a great deal of thought though. It seems to hold some truth to it and that is something to take hold of. Thanks for the ideas and information.

Raist

reply to post by Raist

---

i

Raist,

I keep using the example of a public education becoming today a television/movie education. I have done this many times on ATS/BTS.

To illustrate this for you and other readers....

How many peoples do you know or come into contact with in some manner, who cannot express a moral ethical concept ...outside of a movie or television program they saw. Their morals are movie/television morals and thinking....values. They are someone elses thinking, ideas, ethics.
They live breath and vote second hand lives..because they saw it in a movie or on televison. Understand now?

With people like this ...guilt and victim programming are necessary...even made to order.. to trigger a predictable result or outcome.

And Phil Donahue and others to come were the template for this subversion.
Do I need to take a lie detector test or a DNA test on this.??

Watch how often those who use racism here on ATS/BTS use the time warp technique to take everyone back to slavery...though no one I know has ever owned a slave. One must be conditioned to feel guilty about what others did so long ago. I dont buy into this kind of default con job. This is guilt programming to play or default through as if this tack is the automatic moral and ethical high ground.

When I detect a political party who must label those who disagree with them as Racists. I see guilt programming/conditioning taking place. I see that they are looking for a default setting to trigger others to back off so they can play through unquestioned and unfettered by dissent.
I see entitlement beliefs at work. I also see a political party with great insecurities if they must use racism after spending so much money and tiime conditioning others to not be racial so that they can in fact do the exact thing they disapprove of in others. And for political reasons..just like abortion.

I see whoredom at work. The buying, selling, and trading of the souls of others for placebo reasons. Lies and deception....counterfeits.

No I do not think you are brushing me off in your post. It satisfies me just to think you have some new avenues of thought to balance, to analyze, to contemplate or muse upon.

These examples and concepts I use here on this thread are just from observations I have made of different people and their actions over the years. The observation continues unto this very day. I call it "watching wildlife in its natural habitat."

Hope that in some manner it will help you down the road.

Thanks,
Orangetom

reply to post by Raist

---

She chose to have the baby and keep her. But regardless of our own feelings, we wanted her to make a decision with the knowledge that we would support whatever decision she made and without judgment, so she could make the best decision for herself.
As for a cut off/"free for all" I've been thinking about that. Morally we shudder at the tought of abortion at any time of pregnancy, and especially longer in the term as the fetus becomes more and more vialble and able to survive outside the womb. I've been told that there is a idea that the soul is related to breath. For instance "God breathed life into Adam", until then Adam was a fully formed man, not even an infant. So in this point of view even the partial birth abortions don't kill a spiritual being.
I can't imagine how a woman would deal with an abortion so late in the pregancy, and I have to think she must be very desperate. All we know about partial birth abortions is the procedure, we don't know each womans situation that lead to making that decision. So I lean toward going with a case by case scenario rather than a blanket cutoff that restricts everyone.
Abortion is an action that strikes such a deep chord in all of us, that I believe it should be treated in a more compassionate atmosphere. The arguments that draw lines in the sand may be passionately felt but I find them lacking in compassion for women, and short sighted as to the life the child will lead.
Thanks again for the opportunity to discuss these issues!

reply to post by missvicky

---

If the child would be able to survive outside of the womb or have a greater chance of it could the state not take the child if the mother did not want it? Meaning if the fetus is far enough along would it not make some sense to just induce labor or do a C-section and let the mother go on her way?


This of course would only be if it were a late term abortion as there are limits to when a child could survive, I believe 21 months was the earliest so far.

Raist

reply to post by piddles

---

The parents you mention though being held down. Are they held down because of the child they have or because of their education and choices they made in life that were not thought out well enough when they had the chance?

I only used the animal comparison because others have. I do not use animals in comparison to humans because I believe we are different in such a way we do not need to compare them.

The example you used though is more akin to euthanasia as compared to abortion though. Animals to my knowledge do not forcibly abort their offspring. Some may kill the offspring shortly after birth but that is different.

Not all children who grow up without parents turn out the way you describe. Many might but I see where at one point people/children make the choice that they want better and strive to get it. The only way to get better is to do things that improve upon your chances. Getting better grades and finding work (at an appropriate age) only help this. Choosing to go against the grain of society and doing criminal acts will not improve the situation.

I agree with your points one and two.

What about the death penalty and euthanasia though? What say you on these subjects? Also to add to the euthanasia part I’ll point to my other post on this page asking about helping people commit suicide that are healthy physically but not mentally/emotionally. Should we help them to end their life as well?

Raist

Breaking News: Judge Doesn\'t Rule, Secretary of State Doesn\'t Agree - Obama NOT off
  Posted 17 days ago with 39 member flags

Study says racists and conservatives are dumb
  Posted 9 days ago with 16 member flags

As of feb 9th, Canada\'s own version of SOPA: Bill C-11 will kill more of your freedom
  Posted 15 days ago with 11 member flags

Is ‘anti-Canadianism’ the new ‘anti-Americanism?’
  Posted 19 days ago with 8 member flags

Councilman wants sheriff to stop urging people to get pistol permits
  Posted 17 days ago with 7 member flags

Clarification on the definition of "natural born citizen"
  Posted 17 days ago with 7 member flags

ATS is not as awake as it should be. You might still be sleeping...
  Posted 8 days ago with 7 member flags

ACTA - Get Informed (SOPA\'s Big Brother) Worse than SOPA and PIPA!
  Posted 16 days ago with 6 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: