Isn't this where Hitler started his purge?

No society that values indivdual freedom would advocate such actions.

Click to expand...

Sure they do. They simply redefine the definition of an individual, a person.

We did it in the 18th and 19th centuries w/ blacks, and we still do it today.

This whole thread, of course, brings up the question of whether a person has any rights if they cannot articulate and defend them.

Click to expand...

I guess that one has the right to an attorney to represent those rights; but then there's that thing about knowing you have the right to that attorney.

Click to expand...

...endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights...
Talk about playing God.

It was off topic in this thread: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=61421 and, strictly speaking, it's off topic here as well.

However...

I respect jimpeel's opinion about this thread having to do with civil rights of the living. That is certainly a topic worthy of discussion here if done politely, of course.

As long as the topic doesn't focus on when a human being is considered to be living (ie born, unborn, dead, undead or half-way in between) I'm reluctantly going to leave it open.

Please keep abortion and religion out of it and don't make me look bad for not closing it.

Thanks,

-Dave

NOTE TO OTHER L&P MODS: If this thread strays this --> <-- much into forbidden territory - feel free to slam the door. - TBM

Again, to jimpeel and bluesbear, please don't interpret my earlier posts as an attempt to derail this thread from jim's desired line.

rockjock really put his finger on it. Was talking to my housemate last night as we walked home through the sleet, he told me about his grandmother who less than a year ago said that she would like to be shot if she lost her marbles like both her sisters had done. As of now she has pretty much lost them all, in the process probably forgetting that she stated her preference for a bullet in the head (not that is legal or likely to happen). So, when and in what state of mind do her preferences have greater legitimacy? And who makes this decision? Hopefully never the state.

Derek raises the point of children that are born and have no hope of survival regardless of what treatment is thrown their way. Who makes that decision? Doesn't seem likely that many parents could make that decision - I know it would probably drive me insane. Abstracted from human emotions and mistakes it certainly seems like a good idea.

I know that I have stated that if I am ever certain that I am developing CJD I would do myself in, course it is unlikely that the certainty would exist until I was quite far gone, maybe unable to express my potentially changed wishes, is it murder then when someone carries out my earlier stated wishes without being able to confirm it with me right then and there?

So complicated, and I doubt I am scraping the surface.

oh and jim it isn't facetiousness it is reductio ad absurdum that I suspect Harris of.

I tend to think that this thought process is just a seedling to the greater harm looked to be propagated against mankind. The example of a child that might not have any useful meaning to the greater part of society, retarded or physically unable to perform any productive task, should be euthanized. Why would the perpetrators of this action stop there? They wouldn’t. If someone gets a little, they will want a lot more. It’s like someone trying to get you to do drugs. They start with “ try it once it won’t hurt†but down the line you become a junkie, now it hurts. It makes you wonder if these people have any compassion at all. When you come to love someone you can’t just turn of the bond. And in the case of parenthood that bond starts, well with me that is, the first moment you know of conception. Peter singer is a minion of hell. One could really go on and on with a topic like this.

Does that go for the death penalty?

Hitler? I think the Spartans had this idea long before the late Chancellor.

have said for many years, now, that the legitimization of killing at any level legitimizes killing at every level.

Click to expand...

I haven't had this explained to me, so perhaps you could clarify.
Surely you don't take this to the level of self defense or the death penalty - as hops mentioned. Do you?
Is that not legitimization of killing at a certain level?

Surely you don't take this to the level of self defense or the death penalty

Click to expand...

Well, yes and no. There is a distinct difference between execution, self-defense, and involuntary euthanasia. The first involves due-process of law, without which no man may be deprived of life. The second involves an immediate and fundamental need, that is, to protect one's life, liberty, and property from an assault. This need supercedes due process when the situation warrants. Involuntary euthanasia involves a deprivation of life (no matter how awful life may or may not be for the patient) without due process or an immediate defensive need.

I think what we're running into at this point is a sort of semantic debate. The term "killing" is terribly broad, and only describes the effect, not the cause. And as we all know, cause is EVERYTHING.

I just want to chime in on this death thing.

Killing in self-defense is not a legitimized form of killing. There is no law on the books that says killing is ok. Rather, it is a defense against prosecution and not a sure one.

The death penalty is a totally different story. There is a way to achieve the same effect without bloodshed. It's called life without parole. That all leaves aside how dangerous it is to give the state power over life and death.

-drew

Human life is sacred. But we are allowed to put animals out of their misery. Why not humans?

Click to expand...

Maybe because we're not animals and as you say our lives are sacred? Just postulating...

Aren't most societies compassionate up to some limit of capability? Isn't the Karg case one of rather extreme rarity? (It's hard for me to make the leap from "withdrawing life support" in her case to euthanasia of "undesirables".) Without a brain, where is the "soul", the "self-awareness" that is a part of what we call "human"? To me, her case has no part in these arguments, no "slippery slope"...

Art

MacViolinist wrote:

Killing in self-defense is not a legitimized form of killing. There is no law on the books that says killing is ok. Rather, it is a defense against prosecution and not a sure one.

Click to expand...

There is no concept under American jurisprudence of a law which "OKs" lawfull activity. For example there is no law saying it is "OK" to breathe, blink, eat, etc.

An officer of the State evaluates every homicide for justification. If a killing is ruled to have been justified, then no prosecution takes place and no concept of an "affirmative defense" is involved.

There does indeed exist a legitimate right to take another life in lawfull self defense and no law is required to "OK" using this right. Prosecutors will only bring charges if they find that under the circumstances it was not lawfull to employ this right.

The death penalty is a totally different story. There is a way to achieve the same effect without bloodshed. It's called life without parole. That all leaves aside how dangerous it is to give the state power over life and death.

Click to expand...

Life in prision does not acheive the same effect as does imposition of the death penalty. The first motive in imposing capital punishment is to ensure that the condemned will never kill again. History is replete with examples of lifers killing while in prison, or escaping from prison and killing more people.

This was advocated seriously in the United States in the later Victorian years right up through the 1930s.