Angus Reid finds that 41% of people believe that murder is a socially acceptable means of dealing with the problems life throws at us and those who depend on us.
Naturally, a strongly principled Liberal supporter desperately calls for some policy…any policy.
* Gallup Review Compares Support for Capital Punishment Among Countries – An examination of recent Gallup surveys in the United States, Great Britain, and Canada found that Americans are more supportive of the death penalty than are either Britons or Canadians. An October 2005 poll of Americans measured support for the death penalty at 64%, a figure that was significantly higher than the 44% support measured in Canada and the 49% support found in Great Britain during December 2005 polls. Support for the death penalty recently declined in both Great Britain and Canada, but remained the same in the U.S. as in 2003. (Nevertheless, American support for the death penalty is equal to its lowest level in 27 years.) In all three nations, support for capital punishment was lowest among those who were 18-29 years old. (Gallup Poll press release, “Death Penalty Gets Less Support From Britons, Canadians Than Americans,” February 20, 2006).
I can’t wait for SteveV’s endorsement of capital punishment for the truly useless in society.
These are better questions. The correct answer is when it’s born, it’s a human being. And further, a zygote stops being a zygote upon the first cell division.
On the subject more, asking for euthanasia and acquiescing that request are human rights. I don’t live or die by state sanction.
To Lance:
That’s what the CBC did to my comment!! Freedom of the press, where and when it is an advanatage to the press!
I am a 4th year university student in Microbiology
I knew that depth of stupidity had to come from somewhere. Not is Cyto’s biology wrong so is its morals.
“The correct answer is…”
Oh sweet ghost of Johnny Cash! Why, ’cause you says so?
(Cytootoxic, I’ll cut you a deal: I’ll agree to believe you’re smart if you agree to stop being so pompous, ‘kay?)
I’ll be less pompous if you make better arguments, which is now starting to happen. My use of the moment of birth is because it’s the best objective point in time we’ve got to separate the sub-human fetus from the full human baby.
@Joe: Um. What?
For what it’s worth, I used to hold anti-choice sympathies, but these made less and less sense the more I thought about them. It came down to an issue of freedom.
I remember many decades ago, when I was a third or fourth year student (and thought I knew everything), one of my anthropology profs gave his class a very interesting article to read on this topic.
Essentially, it said there is no beginning to human (or any animal) life. While there is definitely an end to each life, there is simply a continuum of life passing itself on via the egg and the sperm.
The man and the woman are both definitely human. The cells (sperm and egg) that they produce are definitely human. Conception marks a significant moment in the continuum, but one cannot say that in the moments just prior to conception, the two components were something other than human (they certainly weren’t rabbits, to use Joe’s example).
Once conception has occurred there is a steady progression of development along which it is impossible to say with exactitude when the zygote, fetus, whatever, becomes fully human, possessing all the functioning organs and whatnot that it will need to survive, once it is born.
Obviously, birth is also a very significant marker along the continuum, but where does the utter dependency on its mother actually end.
We all know that survival rates of premature babies are much greater today than they were thirty or forty years ago, and the number of weeks prior to a normal term that a premi can survive just keeps getting stretched further and further back.
But even a full term baby cannot survive without parental nurturing, whether the “parent” is a nurse or an adoption agency worker.
So really, how can one say there is a specific point at which one becomes fully human? Unlike the moment of death, there simply isn’t a moment at which life begins, so there really is no point in saying one point of view on the question should prevail over another.
Why start at birth, and why stop at birth? The ancient Greeks routinely left newborns to die of exposure. There’s a very eminent ghoul named Peter Singer who teaches at Princeton and defends infanticide; he does consider it wrong to eat shrimp, however. He is not without morals.
Hey cytoscum what do think gets started in there a friggin chevy?
What a low life murder minded liberano.
Oh and remember to thank your mother for not thinking she started a throw away.
Liberals always claim to want “bold” ideas, or sometimes to implement “bold” policies. This buzzword usually means dreaming up new ways to steal money from taxpayers and to pretend to be giving something back in return.
I don’t think I’ve seen it used in the euthanasia context before, though.
Yes, abortion is a tricky issue. To be pro-choice, you basically have to accept the fact that you’re killing babies. There’s not a huge difference between a 10 week old baby & a newborn. It’s simply easier to stomach killing it before it’s born, when it can look around, and react.
However, I’d rather see a baby be killed than see another teenager give birth, and get sucked into a cycle of welfare. I can’t understand the female perspective here, but if a woman did not want to have a child at that point in her life, I’m hard pressed to say she should be forced to carry a child to term by the government. Having had three boys myself, I can say that pregnancy is a big deal, and a major life changer.
23% of pregnancies in Canada end in abortion. While that number has been dropping, that’s a significant amount. Whenever you have something that prevalent, if you criminalize it, you will not stop it. You’ll reduce it somewhat, yes, but you won’t come even close to stopping it. It goes underground, becomes unsafe, or people will travel to a location that it is available safely.
You cannot force people to behave according to your own morals. If you feel the government should be forcing a moral code on people, then I hope you enjoy Sharia law. Be happy. Most assuredly, abortion will be illegal.
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For He who said, “DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,” also said, “DO NOT COMMIT MURDER.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.
Scripture tells us that all sin is equal in the eyes of God. If you believe in governmental enforcement of religious law, and you read, and believe scripture, you should believe in governmental enforcement of ALL religious law. That would include adultery, coveting things, gossip, dishonesty, and not loving God/your fellow man.
Cytotoxic – you stated in response to Joe “The term “Human Being” has a lot more to it than 46 chromosomes. By your standard, every cell in my body is a human being”
Think about what you said. Indeed, every cell in your body is a human being, every cell contains all your DNA andd is a copy of you and theoretically. a person can be cloned from a single cell from their body. Which is exactly how “you” were formed from a zygote in the first place; your cells, the ones that contained all the information about you and instructions for your future biological development were contained in that very first zygote, the moment the sperm fertilized your egg that formed the zygote that divided and divided and divided a billions times over. I trust you understand what I am attempting to communicate using unsophisticated language. So, yes there is a human being in everyone of your cells – you.
@ Cytotoxic – you are generally correct with your definitions, however, you have to remember that many of them are arbitrary. A fetus is the definition @ 11 weeks gestation until birth, but some fetus’ are viable outside the uterus at 25 weeks and all at 35 weeks. Moreover the animal continues to develop in many ways, including significant neurological pathways after birth outside of the womb.
Therefore you argument is a non sequitur, really.
All stages of the lifecycle do come under the heading of human being.
The legal definition is the important one, and comes from the medieval ages and English law, which tried to define criminal culpability. It was held that once the infant took a breath outside the womb, it was considered a human being and had such rights. This was in the days before I could take an ultrasound and demonstrate fetal viablity by showing a heartbeat, and the law needed a clear definition of what was alive and what was not.
@ people who are so anti-euthanasia: as a physician I see people who present at the end of life, often in significant distress. I can understand why some people would consider euthanasia for themselves and I think it has to be a personal choice made between them and their physicians. As always I am wary of State intervention in this, none of us trust the State with our health and rights. However, I would ask some of you to have a more open mind to what is a very complicated issue.
langmann – do you consider the administration (with consent) of painkillers in potentially lethal doses to patients who are in pain and are on the threshhold of death euthanasia? I don’t, and I don’t have a problem with it.
Adune – I object to paying for abortions when I believe it is not morally responsible. Right now, I’m forced, through my tax dollars and health care premiums, to pay for abortions. If someone feels that an abortion is the same as looking at another human being with lust, stealing, or adultry that is between them and God, but I do not want to be an accomplice by paying for them. If someone wants an abortion, they can pay for it themselves. Simple as that.
BTW – are you suggesting this scripture means that God is saying – go ahead murder, commit adultery whatever, you’ve told a lie so you’ve sinned and broke every single law in my eyes so you might as well just go for it and do whatever you feel like and whatever is convenient for you, its okay with me. It sounds to me like that is what you are suggesting.
Scripture must be taken in context, and scripture interprets itself and must be taken in context with the whole body of scripture.
Scripture also says:
Isaiah 5:20 Woe to them that call evil good, {a} and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
(a) Who are not ashamed of sin, nor care for honesty but are grown to a desperate impiety.
Wesley’s Notes
5:20 To them – That take away the difference between good and evil; that justify wicked men and things, and condemn piety, or righteous persons.
Benjamin Franklin:
“He that would live in peace and at ease
must not speak all he knows or all he sees.”
Jesus: “I did not come to bring peace but a sword.”
“Do not say ‘Peace, peace, where there is no peace.”
“Woe to you if all men speak well of you.”
Cytotoxic: “I am a 4th year university student in Microbiology. I understand this better than you.”
Hahahahahahaha.
I guess I was right to ask what they’re teaching in school these days — and, of course, am not surprised at the drivel.
I just hope that Cytotoxic isn’t anywhere near my death bed.
@ Black Mamba,
To answer your question, “do you consider the administration (with consent) of painkillers in potentially lethal doses to patients who are in pain and are on the threshhold of death euthanasia?”
Yes I do. The fine balance between controlling pain and respiratory failure gets harder and harder as one gets closer to the end. For new doctors and nurses administering opiates can be extremely challenging at this stage. I know I have had difficulty with it. When someone is agonal and death is imminent I know I may have over administered opiates and possibly hastened death. However the alternative is someone dying in severe pain. I can only hope that during this time I have correctly administered the right amount of drugs so that they experience a nice tunnel of light or God or whatever it is people go through either biologically or spiritually at the brink. I have no idea but I’m trying to make it painless at least. That’s my perspective anyway, even if its unscientific or there is little proof it does any good.
I consider it euthanasia “a good death” in the same way that I consider it euthanasia when I am asked by a patient to turn off their ventilator or stop treatment so that they can die. I still remember some faces rather vividly, such as the man who had “locked in syndrome” (for those who don’t know a type of stroke where only the concious part of the brain and the control of eye muscles still works). I remember his scared face and his more peaceful but still frightened face after he elected through a long process of yes-no eye movements to choose to have his ventilator turned off. Same with CF patients etc.
I have never given a prescription of drugs to a patient who asked me to end their life. I have been asked. It is unlawful at this time. I also consider it dangerous as a failed attempt to end life can result in physical impairment reducing potentially poor quality of life.
Do I think that patients with valid medical reasons should be able to elect to undergo active euthanasia with the agreement of their physician and a psychiatrist? Yes I do.
Am I nervous about the State being involved? 100%. Its even worse in Canada where as they are the provider of medical insurance, they have an interest to save money which at times may be polar in opposite to the patient’s wish to live. I can certainly envision a future when elderly people are denied treatment based on age.
“Cytotoxic: “I am a 4th year university student in Microbiology. I understand this better than you.””
One thing is for certain Cyto, and that is you will think quite differently about things as you approach 40. What I’m saying is it’s commonly accepted that much of what someone your age (I suspect mid 20’s) says is little more than drivel. This is what it means to be human, you can not escape this truth. Did they teach you that at school? Here’s a litmus test for you; pass your drivel onto you mom, dad or grandparents and see what they think. Seriously.
You must understand Cyto that the worlds most debated questions are not likely to be solved here and now by YOU- THE ALL MIGHTY 4TH YEAR MICROBIOLOGY STUDENT WHO KNOWS MORE THAN…
Cyto, you have only an opinion based on your definition. Your argument has been rebutted by a few commenter’s (I like langmann’s) but you inflexibility doesn’t allow you to concede that a different opinion can have merit.
This haughty opinion of yourself leads me to believe you are a supporter of the AGW theory. If this is true, fine; but I then also suspect you will argue that opponents of such a theory are also not qualified to dispute the all knowing such as yourself. Do I have you pegged correctly? If not, my bad.
Also, would it be fair to expect you (Cyto) to remain silent on issues(not just here) such as economics, domestic policy, socialism vs. capitalism, crime & punishment since you’re a “4th year university student in Microbiology” and don’t know much about these things? Sounds like a fair trade to me!
Catch-22, I am sorry your father passed away. However, the human condition will always be prone to suffering. We should meet suffering head-on, find ways to alleviate it, not kill off people because WE are uncomfortable with suffering.
Cytotoxic, what makes a human being? How is humanity measured? You have made claims to know human physiology (at least on the cellular level). What makes a human being human? Whenever I posed that question to others, I get the gist of humanity being whatever the claimant wants it to be. That is trying to be God. We already have one God. We don’t need someone pretending to be Him.
Was it not the notoriously bloodthirsty Paul Simon who sang, “Die de die! Die de die die die die die!”?
Some of the comments I read here are bizarre. I feel like Vincent and Jules in that scene in Pulp Fiction where the guy tries to shoot them almost point blank but misses every time. What I’m reading is that “being human” is nothing more than a genetic state…which seems more degrading than anything I’ve ever heard from the pro-choice camp. My earlier hautiness with regards to my scientific qualifications was a necessary rebuttal to a misguided lecture on the biology of a fetus/embryo. The complaining over that is more anti-elitism run amok. And no, I have no faith in AGW for the exact reason that I have spent time in the sciences. At least langmann offers a thoughtful contribution.
You mean langmann agrees with you.
You still haven’t answered my question.
Cytotoxic – I do not want to pay for another womens abortion, yet I am being forced to do so. If a women wants an abortion, which is most certainly not a life or death threatening medical condition, on the contrary, it is a choice, not a medical emergency, she or her partner can pay for it.
langman – I am wondering where you practice; country, province or state. My sister-in-law is an RN who works with the terminally ill and aging in Alberta. She works for Capital Health and is a home care nurse who looks after palliative patients in hospices and in their homes. From what I understand, opiates are self adminstered through a medication pump which the patient can and does program their own dosage according to control their pain and discomfort. These pumps come with a device, similiar to a bedside call bell button used in a hospital, that a patient can simply press themselves to administer a dose of opiates in between the pump metered and programmed dosages. If a patient wanted to, they could and sometimes do, press that button every 15 minutes – some people want to be conscious when they die while others do not, some want to be alone while others want their family with them.
Adune: “However, I’d rather see a baby be killed than see another teenager give birth, and get sucked into a cycle of welfare. I can’t understand the female perspective here, but if a woman did not want to have a child at that point in her life, I’m hard pressed to say she should be forced to carry a child to term by the government. Having had three boys myself, I can say that pregnancy is a big deal, and a major life changer.”
Adune, really?
If a teenager, or adult for that matter, is prepared to take on sexual intercourse in or out of marriage, they had better be prepared to accept the natural, healthy consequence of pregnancy.
It is up to the parent to teach their children the responsibility you take on when you engage in sexual relations.
Society has dubbed fertility as a disease. It is not right to tell a child (teenager) that they can just “rid” of the consequence of their actions. This will leak to other areas of their lives and decisions they make.
On top of the fact that by telling a teenager this is ok, you are exposing them to abortion, which is an unhealthy (mentally, physically) act. Along with murder, you are putting an enormous amount of guilt and future anguish on this woman. Even if they do not admit it, they know it is wrong.
We need to start with the root of the problem, not make the poor decision then think about it after.
Furthermore, it is not the government forcing the woman to carry the baby to term then have the baby, it was the woman’s choice in the beginning to take the risk of having sex, and therefore it should be her responsibility to carry the baby to term and have it. Whether she keeps it or not after that, is her choice…but murdering a baby and taking away a potential life, is not our choice as humans. Just because we have the means to do something, does not make it right.
Sorry, further to my comment “even if they do not admit it, they know it is wrong”…unfortuneately women are not given FULL consent when they choose abortion. They are not told of the anguish, the guilt and the unhealthy consequences of abortion. If they do not realize the wrong of their decision at the time, they will realize it once it is too late.
Personal responsibility is key.
I think I am done now.
Cytotoxic: “I am a 4th year university student in Microbiology. I understand this better than you.”
ah the truth will out (yet again).
humanists from all corners don’t even acknowledge a point I made decades ago about medical science and relevancy to abortion debate.
as I see it, the gap at which a fertilized egg can (and more so in future if technology trends continue) be still implanted in a friendly uterus, and the earliest date the birth can happen, is gradually closing. surgery on the unborn, fertilized cattle eggs put in a rabbit for transport around the world, frozen fertilized eggs etc etc.
so it seems that period where the unborn child is really dependent on the mother (a big part of the pro-abortion argument) is shrinking. pro-chocers are losing ground to technology. so what say you cyanidetoxin? other than the usual personal attacks I get around here…..
What makes a human being human? Whenever I posed that question to others, I get the gist of humanity being whatever the claimant wants it to be. That is trying to be God. We already have one God. We don’t need someone pretending to be Him.
Osumashi Kinyobe
Off topic, but if you posed the ? what makes a god,
you’d get whatever the claimant wants it to be.
We already have as many gawds as claimants who attest to their existence.
that period where the unborn child is really dependent on the mother (a big part of the pro-abortion argument) is shrinking.
That never was much of an argument as a newborn
doesn’t become independently viable for quite some time.
The resolution of the abortion issue lies in the elimination
of unwanted pregnancy.
As far as I am concerned, abortion is cosmetic surgery.
I agree with M.E., and those that brought technology into the debate. 3D ultrasounds do not lie. We routinely save the life of babies under 26 weeks of life, and at the same time, abort babies the same age and older. If Cytotoxic was being honest, the answer to the question, what makes someone human is whether or not you are wanted or valued by an individual or society.
I’ve posted this here before, and I’m sure I’ll post again.
Canada’s left wing is all for the killing of innocents – whether is be abortion or euthanasia. But the killing of murderers? Oh, that’s barbaric.
KevinB – to quote that mainstay of all opinionated right-wingers, P.J. O’Rourke, from the intro to his (best-title-ever!) compendium Give War a Chance: “No one is fond of taking responsibility for his actions, but consider how much you’d have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that advocated killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers. A callous pragmatist might favour abortion and capital punishment. A devout Christian would sanction neither. But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the liberal point of view.”
phil: ” … unwanted pregnancy.”
Unwanted by whom?
“You’re either unborn OR a child. The latter is human and has rights while the former doesn’t and thus can’t be murdered, just terminated.”
WOW, what a disgusting and ignorant comment! Somehow a baby doesn’t become a baby until after it has left the womb. Terrible to think that my daughter who was born prematurely could have just as easily been aborted in this county. Why? Because she wasn’t an actual baby yet.
Thanks, langmann @12:21
@ No One:
I specialize in emergency medicine and work at a large tertiary hospital in Canada, if that is important to you. I can assure you that while patient administered analgesia by IV pump is one method of pain control, it is by no means applicable to everyone. For example, I’ll occasionally see someone who has extensive lung metastasis (pain controlled by the preferred oral route) who comes in respiratory failure due to rapid filling of their “lung cavity” (pulmonary effusion) and is DNR (do not resuscitate) by their own wishes. At this point in time we provide narcotics to control pain for the patient while they die.
The other most obvious reason self administered IV analgesia does work is when someone is unconcious or not lucid enough to push the button. Finally the self administered amount is still controlled to a maximum amount per hour by a physician’s orders – really these devices are for people who cannot manage oral medications.
@ Osumashi:
Never said I agreed with Cytotoxic. Actually my point is one should not hide moral arguments behind biological definitions especially when the most important one (infant vs fetus) is an ancient definition made before we scientifically understood fetal viability…
Thanks for the clarification langman. I recall caring for a close relative with one of these pumps and from what I remember there were no restrictions on dosages – which I would have liked to have seen. At the time, I thought – good gracious he can puch that button anytime he wants. The only limitation I noted, was the amount of drug present in the bag that was inside of the pump. I hope these devices have evolved to the point where a pin number is inputed in order to change the dosage. I was concerned at the time that someone could literally change the dosage without the patient knowing and could even change it back – made me uneasy. Thankfully – there was a great nurse from capital health who came in every second day and was monitoring the situation.
langman – you actually described to a tee the exact situation my relative was in. He had lung metastasis and a DNR on his medical record. Like I said, the doages were up to him. as far as i could see. As a matter of fact. while caring for this individual , I noted he was sleeping more than usual. I checked his pump and, much to my dismay, the dasoage of narcotics had been changed. To this day, I do not know who changed them and I was upset. I think these pumps should be monitored and a pin number required to establish whoever changes the dosages. Thankfully, I noticed what was going on and disconnected the pump. After an hour the paitient woke up and I was able to speak with him. He had no recolection of changing the dosage, but I also realized he had done the same b4 in my presence and was hsesitant in confronting him cause I knew he was in severe pain constantly and thought it none of my business if he wanted to end his life. I cried for several hours upon hearing of his death. He not only had cancer of the lungs, but it had spread to his brain and kidneys. I had no problem with him pressing that button as many times as he wanted to. I spent many an hour rubbing his back and legs to alleviate the severe pain he was experiencing. I can see why he chose to be unconcious when he passed.
This is one of the most interesting threads I’ve ever read. batb, I greatly appreciate you’re thoughtfulness, and reason in you’re posts, truly enlightening. I don’t want to join in on the beat down of Cytotoxic, but with that statement of blind superiority : “I’m a 4th year university student in Microbiology, I understand this better than you” one is left with the impression that an education in the sciences instills a certain amount of pompous arrogance that leaves an individual without the ability to admit the possibilty that they may be wrong.