Happiness Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 pro choice, pro death penalty, pro euthenasia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firedoc5 Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 If statistics are any indication, the system may well be allowing some innocent defendants to be executed. - Justice Sandra Day O’Connor The best available evidence indicates that, on the one hand, innocent people are sentenced to death with materially greater frequency than was previously supposed and that, on the other hand, convincing proof of their innocence often does not emerge until long after their convictions. - United States v. Quinones A legal regime relying on the death penalty will inevitably execute innocent people - not too often, one hopes, but undoubtedly sometimes. Mistakes will be made because it is simply not possible to do something this difficult perfectly, all the time. Any honest proponent of capital punishment must face this fact. - U.S. District Judge Michael Ponsor http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-...n-death-penalty An interesting read FD5, but most important are the stats (out of date at this time I believe as most sources claim 130 now) at the bottom of the page. Dwayne I'm not saying that it is better in other countries that do execute immediately, just saying that is how it is done. I really don't know of any stats perse, but I wonder how much of a percentage of those that after a very long legal battle that actually proved themselves innocent. I know that DNA results have cleared several. But I have not heard of anyone recently that was proven innocent after they were executed. Guess I'll have to do some reading up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussiephil Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Personally I dont think that you can compare these 3 topics & ask for a persons ability to agree with one, & not the other. The reason for this i simple. The Death Penalty is taking the life of a person whom has committed a crime against humainty, laws dictate what those crimes are. If I live in a place with the death penalty & choose to commit that type of crime, then i will be put to death. HOW it is done may be a better point of discussion, because even though they are being killed for crime, it should still be humane. Abortion is the choice of a woman, one would hope with the support of her partner, who, for any number of reasons has decided to terminate her pregnancy. As long as it is legal, we must respect the decision of the woman. Remember we all make decisions based on the information in front of us at the time, hind sight is a wonderful thing. Euthenasia will always be controversial. Currently aussieland does not endorse legalised euthenasia. Personally, having seen the suffering of many terminally ill patients, I do support it. I believe that it resores some dignity to a person when they most need it. We do however need to be careful. There was a case here where a woman claimed to have terminal cancer, was advocating euthenasia, but tests revealed she had nothing. I believe that there should be some checks & balances there, just to ensure it is not a bogus call & the person has tried everything & this is a last resort. I realise that i am non commital in my response, so in summary, I support all 3, in some cases!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crotchitymedic1986 Posted January 4, 2009 Author Share Posted January 4, 2009 No, they are all three questions regarding the sanctity of life. Interesting though, I dont think anyone has said they were absolutely against Euthenasia, despite their feelings on the other two subjects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussiephil Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 No, they are all three questions regarding the sanctity of life. Interesting though, I dont think anyone has said they were absolutely against Euthenasia, despite their feelings on the other two subjects. While all 3 refer to the sanctity of life, one is to be taken because of their actions against others. Crime is the deprivation of a persons civil liberties by another, this needs to be punished. The decision is made by the courts. Euthenasia & abortion are choices made, lifestyle choices almost. Most people who endure abortions suffer the same grief as those who have a still born. The decision is made to do it, it is the choice of the mother. She will make that choice for many reasons. Euthenasia is a choice made by the person with a terminal illness, to allow family & friends to grieve & move on, it allows a person to make a choice to end it now, so the family wont see me suffer. There is sanctity in life, however, modern medicine is giving quantity without quality of life. This also needs to be considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WelshMedic Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 The only thing that these three subjects have in common is the termination of a life. This may sound somewhat cold and clinical, but to me, it's a fact. That's not to say that I don't have an opinion on these matters. As with all things in life, it's just not black and white. Here's my take on the subject; The death penalty: I always thought that I was against it. There can be a no more heinous crime than a state execution whilst someone is innocent, however small that possibility is. However, I now have small children. If something was to happen to one of my children and it was the doing of another individual, then I would be willing to commit the deed myself. That's a hypocritical statement which I cannot sustain. I believe in making clear choices (no sitting on the fence for me..). So, I'm afraid that this ship has turned and now supports a (well-founded) death penalty. Abortion: No lack of clarity here! Why? Well, there are enough reasons but just indulge me whilst I tell you a story: I recently responded to a domestic emergency where a 6 week-old baby had been battered by it's mother. The child was brain-injured and died a few days later. When the post-mortem was completed they'd found old (!!!!) fractures of both arms. That child had been physically abused since it's birth. The mother had become pregnant and the partner's family had forced her to carry it, against her wishes. That child was unwelcome, and it ended tragically. What's better, termination of an embryo or letting a small baby suffer so horifically? That's why I'm pro-abortion. Euthanasia: Definitely pro. I have been in nursing for 21 years this year. I have seen my fair shair of suffering, even if I say so myself. I am lucky enough to live in one of the very few countries in the world where (strictly controlled) euthanasia is allowed. I don't believe in endless suffering for a greater good. It's counterproductive and destroys the precious little time that a person with a terminal illness has. Everyone has the right to decide what happens to them and their body. We just take that a step further and grant them the same rights when it comes to the cessation of life. As an aside, EMS in the Netherlands is also directly involved in this process. We are frequently asked to start IV's so that the family doctor can administer the lethal cocktail after which the pt dies at home. We do, however, have the right to refuse on religious or moral grounds. Just my 2c worth... WM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts