|
Post by Arachis on Jun 11, 2005 14:33:31 GMT -5
human life is protected under the constitution just as much as human death. The famous line, "that [we] are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" also happens to mean that a person is free to get rid of their life as well as keep it. Similar to the ability to sell your property (which is actually one of the three rights in the original statement made by the french in their own paper the Decleration of the rights of man). This is especially true when killing yourself is part of the "pursuit of happiness".
As far as abortion goes, there are a number of viable arguments against it, but there are even more for it. First of all, the person is yet to be born, so technically they are not alive. Second of all, even if it is alive, it obviously cant make the decision, and just like a minor under 18 year old, it is the parents decision to make for him. To my knowledge though, its brain isnt formed enough (during the early stages of pregency when abortions are still feasible) for it to be considered alive. Furthermore, studies have shown that allowing abortions actually is a major force in keeping crime rates down, as it keeps more unwanted children from growing up in poverty and misery and thereby usually making a career in crime. Finally, its the parents decision to do what they want. If you are using the bible as an excuse, well abraham was willing to sacrifice his son to god, and God sacrificed his own son Jesus for humanity. Though human life is precious, there are times when it must or should be sacrificed.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jun 11, 2005 14:51:31 GMT -5
Not necessarily. That's just an interpretation.
It can easily be argued that a human soul is not "property". Besides, how does one rid him or her self of his or her self without running into a legal paradox?
I notice you haven't even touched the topic of psychological damage. The taking of life is complicated and multi-faceted, and the fact that we are arguing about it now only demonstrates the fuzziness of the issue -- and, hence, proves my original point.
Ali, don't think that you can conclude a heated and long-debated issue with a simple paragraph. The arguements for both sides are equally compelling.
Opinions are not facts, and that was the only reason I quoted your "example".
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Jun 11, 2005 15:51:19 GMT -5
I've been thinking about this recently, and I've come to the conclusion that abortion should be allowed. With so many different opinions, what better way to let people do what they feel right than by letting them choose themselves. Do you believe it's murder? Then don't do it. If you believe otherwise, then why should someone be allowed to force their opinions upon you? When the issue is fuzzy, it's much safer to let the individual choose for themselves.
On the other, this choice may reflect poorly on our society. If it is legal, people will start to think that their government is saying it's ok, and then will start complaining. This is the real dilema in my mind, not what should be done but how to present it in a way that your average American, who probably can't find the US on a world map, will be able to understand and accept the descision.
Edit: Just wanted to respond to Andrew's post. You're using a very poor fictional example in your last post. A policeman would not do that, and probably cannot do that unless you are acting suspicious. As for music, I'm not sure what you're complaining about. You have the right to listen to whatever music you want. If you're complaining about the government's disaproval of pirating music, well duh, you stole it. As for the volume, why should the whole society make an adjustment just for one person to listen to loud music? It's not like you can't hear it otherwise, it's just noise polution. Knowing how late you stay up, it would probably mean other people would loose out on sleep, which they are not willing to sacrifice for another's auditory pleasure, and thus the law exists. You need to see things from other's points of view as well, this is a society, not just a group of separate individuals.
I also agree with Alexie's point as well, laws are there to ensure that people can interact productively together, and people don't just run rampant doing anything they feel like. It's a democracy, not an anarchy.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jun 11, 2005 15:57:23 GMT -5
Could we talk about abortion on another thread?
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Jun 12, 2005 13:11:25 GMT -5
what psychological damage does killing someone bring? sure there may be some effect, especially if the person is close to you, but if you are willing to do it in order to put them out of their misery, the effect is usually minimal. If a person is afraid of killing someone, then they will have a bad psychological reaction and shouldnt kill the person in the first place. If someone feels that killing the person is being compassionate, then the damage is usually pretty small. I dont know if you have ever put a dog to sleep, its not that psychologically damaging, or had a granparent living the last 10 years of their life out in misery, expensive treatment, and in general, a burden on the family as a whole, but its a terrible experience, and sometimes its best for the family to allow him to die.
My grandfather had parkinsons, and not only was he under great stress (it took all his energy to say 6 words) but he also was bored all day (he watched tv about 17 hours of the day) used up most of my grandmothers money and eventually forced her to move out of her house (once he was dead) and put it up for rent, and move to an apartment. Finally, having my grandfather in this condition was hard for the rest of my family because whenever they visited, he was there as a reminder of what he used to be and what he was now. Furthermore, they all had to spend a lot of time taking care of him outside what they normally would have been glad to spare. Morbid though it may seem, everyone was actually relieved when he died because we knew that everyone would be happier including himself. I dont think my family would have decided to kill him earlier, but in a similar situation I am sure that other familys would not only want to, but need to if they were to keep on living as they did beforehand.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jun 12, 2005 15:39:47 GMT -5
I'm not going to dig up evidence to rebuke your claims (for I have better things to do), but the very fact that we're arguing about this without success only goes to show that the debate is there and has every right to be there.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Jun 12, 2005 16:38:17 GMT -5
and since the debate is there, and is probably not going to be resolved, the government cannot make a decision that enforces the will of a majority onto another minority or vice versa. Like Nick said, in this case each person should be allowed to make the decision they want, without the law interfering either way.
|
|
|
Post by Andrewlazytologin on Aug 7, 2005 7:48:57 GMT -5
So, final point:
She wasn't killed, she's been dead a while. I know this thread of over two months old, almost three. But I have to copy paste this:
"Hate to burst your bubble, but Terri has been in a persistent vegetative state for many years now. In fact, she didn't die yesterday, she died years ago when she was first declared brain dead. Just because her organs can be kept alive doesn't mean that she's a living person.
Why are you involving yourself in a private family matter anyway? You don't know her. There are thousands of people dying each day because they can't afford surgery, medicine, or chemo therapy, why aren't there protesters trying to save their lives? Most of these people got diseases naturally, unlike Terri who went into a coma because she was so concerned with vanity that she puked her body dry of nutrients. Isn't that hypocritical of you? "
Written by Maddox
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Aug 8, 2005 16:29:23 GMT -5
Did that have a point or are you just trying to preach the teachings of your idol, who you bash on your website?
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Aug 8, 2005 17:00:00 GMT -5
look even a monkey can type shakespeare.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Aug 8, 2005 17:57:04 GMT -5
Given enough time and enough typewriters... = P
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Aug 8, 2005 18:08:11 GMT -5
That Madox guy isn't a moron. He makes a few good points, but the other half the time he just bashes anything in sight. He does do a lot of research though, he knows what he's talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Salome on Aug 8, 2005 23:30:31 GMT -5
i think i had a rant on maddox somewhere else on the forum, so i'll not comment here... although the same sentiments hold
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Aug 9, 2005 22:46:00 GMT -5
you could have quoted yourself or linked yourself. Now Im interested.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Aug 9, 2005 22:59:23 GMT -5
|
|