News-Record.com

Humans, for the most case are rational beings, or at the very least strive to be. A human is infinitely valuable and is worthy of respect by all other humans.

Simply put, killing a murderer respects that murderer's belief that murder, in some situation, is morally justifiable. Perhaps killing a murderer is the best way that we can respect his dignity as a human being.

" .. killing a murderer respects that murderer's belief that murder, in some situation, is morally justifiable."

Interesting perspective . I like it.

While I believe capital punishment is appropriate for certain murderers, I do agree with the LTE writer's concern about calling humans something else in order to justify killing them. We don't need to redefine a murderer as nonhuman--he receives a death sentence because of what he did, not who he is. He is a human being who did a horrible deed to another human.

Slave traders decided Africans were not fully human in order to justify their actions. Hitler renamed the mentally retarded "useless eaters" so he could justify their extermination. Abortionists never call a baby a baby--they perform "the procedure" as if it is no more significant than an appendectomy.

Anyone with human DNA is human. Let's not dehumanize anybody, lest we dehumanize ourselves!

Mamaboiler,
Please expand that a step further, and speak of the "dehumanizing" of people who have the polar opposite of opinions on war, providing assistance to the poor (you know, actual breathing human beings), providing veterans with needed services (after all, we support the troops, don't we?) or people who do not look like us or speak as we do.

Oh heck, what do I know....

So, Mr. Crawford, if all of that is true, what happens when we kill an unborn child in its mother's womb? Are they not just as human as you and I? Are the people in their mother's womb not really “human” — are they animals, or even worse, an unnamed sub-human species just because they haven't been delivered quite yet? What's their crime, being unwanted my their mother or being an inconvenient truth?

What do we become? A two-legged wolf? The number of unborn children killed legally in this country every year exceeds those killed on death row by the millions. So are we a society of two-legged wolves?

Mr Crawford you ask : " So what happens when we kill the killer? "

He pays for his crime and you can be sure he will never kill again.

Oak,
Do you chain yourself to clinic doors? Serious question here.

Oak,
Are you ready to tell us that a fetus has the potential to become a human being? Serious question here.

"Are you ready to tell us that a fetus has the potential to become a human being? Serious question here."

I can't respond for Oak, but an illegal alien might be able to help. A large number of them seem to have worked that one out already.

Roger

Mr. Crawford,

Thank you for your excellent letter. It summed up my feelings very nicely.

H G

Don Crawford, you need to run for public office. You'd make a typical lip dripping politician! I haven't read as much nothing meaning gobbligook crap from any other person in my life accept a politician!

What are prison correctional officers? Just zookeepers?

"Crawford For President" The Dog's outa here.
Crime Dog

LC,

C'mon, is that the best that you can do today?

Have you helped to kill any children today? Do you volunteer at Planned Parenthood? Is an unborn child a human or not? What is it in a mother's mind that they allow someone to kill their unborn young? Serious questions here.

Neo,

Let's see what the dictionary says: fe·tus - the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

Yep, a fetus has the potential to become a human being, perhaps, it even already is.

So, Howie, how do you feel about women killing their own?

"The only important difference between them and us is that they came to believe that certain people should be killed and then acted on that belief."

So, they must have had a good reason for killing someone, huh? Unbelievable. What if they didn't have a belief that certain should be killed, but just executed them for the fun of it? A natural born killer.

oxymoron you said :
"Please expand that a step further, and speak of the "dehumanizing" of people who have the polar opposite of opinions on war, providing assistance to the poor (you know, actual breathing human beings), providing veterans with needed services (after all, we support the troops, don't we?) or people who do not look like us or speak as we do."

And we can use you as an shining example of this very thing!

ORR,

The letter sums up my feelings about the death penalty. That others chose to go off topic has no bearing on my opinion of the original points of this letter.

But since you asked: I do not approve of women (or anyone) killing their own children.

LC: I think I made it clear that anyone with human DNA should not be dehumanized--including the poor, those who break our laws, those who don't share my religious or political beliefs, and those who don't look like me. I actually envy those who don't look like me, because some mornings I look anything but human! :)

Howie: I didn't think I went off topic. I thought the point of the original letter was that when we dehumanize anyone, we risk our own humanity.My point is that there are many ways to dehumanize people, all of which should be avoided.

mama,

I was not referring to you. Your example was used to make a point about the extension of the concept beyond the original point. While I disagree with that concept, it was still a sound use of the example.

I was referring to ORR, who changed the subjct entirely.

Thanks.

Thanks Howie. That fellow is a one note horn.

Toot, toot, L.C. There's two notes for ya.

Howie, I would argue that I did not change the subject. The subject of the letter was about opposing capital punishment on moral grounds. Well, I and others oppose abortion, which is capital punishment for the unborn. Sorry, I ruined your day and L.C.'s by disagreeing with the two of you, but you are not the board monitor who gets to decide what is discussed. And, in L.C.'s case, there never is a discussion, but rather personal attacks and insults. It doesn't seem that L.C. can make a coherent argument.

ORR, you know that the mere mention of a baby not completely born causes all sorts of trouble.

"Now, let it work. Mischief, thou art afoot. Take thou what course thou wilt."

ORR … per your May 8, 2008 10:53 AM post - looks like you’re OK with “individual choice” until “after the end of the second month of gestation” ... which is pretty close – as I understand it – to the current limit, which is the third month of gestation.

So what’s your bitch?

"Toot, toot, L.C. There's two notes for ya."

Toot...toot? Isn't that the same note? I think so.

Still a one note horn.

Abortion ain't murder. Get over it.

"Abortion ain't murder. Get over it."

From what I understand rahrah you are a college student with no children. Correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps your post was in pseudo jest, correct me if I'm wrong.

Perhaps some day you will have children, correct me if I'm wrong. I've been blessed with two and they have changed my life completely. The love I have for those children is indescribable and infinite. Just to look in their bright eyes, to hold them, and hear them say I love you Daddy makes my day. It makes me shudder to think of the concept that their lives could have been ended via abortion.

I have always been against abortion, but even more so now that I have experienced the joy of children who were once, as Demon Deacon describes, a "glob of cells". Does that mean I'm going to sit in front of abortion clinics and try to prevent women from having one? Nope. It's legal and none of my business. That doesn't mean I cannot oppose it however and express an opinion. Abortion is murder.

**************************************************

Back to the capital punishment. I used to support it however after the Darryl Hunt case I had second thoughts. The idea of an innocent person receiving capital punishment does not sit well. Besides it doesn't seem effective as cases can go on for decades and cost alot of money.

Frankly if I were a convicted murderer and had the choice of rotting in jail for life or dying I would prefer the latter.

That being said, the author's bit about robbing the robber and raping the rapist is a bit silly.

“ … what happens when we kill an unborn child in its mother's womb? Are they not just as human as you and I? “

I say yes, they are just as human, and clearly more “pure” … but decisions still need to be made:

1 – If we value all human life simply because it is human life, then we must for no reason beyond that they are human - keep alive all humans. This means the Terry Schiavo’s (and all others brain dead) must be kept “alive” for as long as medically possible – which is near forever. This includes those with medical conditions that could qualify under “Living Will” exemptions as well written euthanasia directives. Even the Henry Lee Lucas’ of the world ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Lee_Lucas ) must eventually be kept on a tube of food and water for as long as medically possible – Did I say "near forever"?

If we decide to go down that path – ya’d better start putting aside a whole lot more for those Medical Savings Plans, because the costs will quickly dominate every breath you take, especially as medical techniques advance every day. Can you say "near forever". In my humble opinion we are already way too far down that path.

2 - If we decide instead to define some value on human life, based on either rational or irrational criteria – no matter which – then we must decide who makes writes the definition of value. Two choices: the government or the individual.

It is puzzling to me how “CON”servatives who espouse minimal government intervention are OK when some individual decisions are made (Living Wills) but not when other individual decisions are made (euthanasia directives). They "require" - which is stronger than "are OK with" government involvement in some individual decisions (abortions) as well as some “society” decisions (execution).

“I want my cake - and I want to eat it too”. We can make that happen, right? No? WHAT – I Can’t Have it Both Ways?!?!?”

I believe there is a time for natural death, but never should a person be starved to death or dehydrated to death. Terry Schaivo died a death that liberals would never allow for a convicted murderer. I don't want to be kept alive forever on a respirator, but neither do I want to die a slow death from dehydration.

There is a difference between compassionate comfort care, e.g. IV fluids, and extraordinary measures. The terminally ill deserve to be kept as comfortable as possible until death takes them. A "no code" order is not the same as an order to let someone thirst to death.

" If we value all human life simply because it is human life, then we must for no reason beyond that they are human - keep alive all humans."

Your argument seems to omit that a natural part of human life is death, we will all get there someday. I saw my favorite aunt die of pancreatic cancer. The doctors wanted to extend her life by a few weeks or months, she said no thanks.

I don't understand the analogy between keeping someone who is dying "artificially" alive versus killing a new life that is growing.

Help me out JDR.

Isn't funny when a woman wants to have her baby and someone kills both mother and child or just causes the mother to lose the child, we consider it murder, but when the mother does not want the baby it is just a choice? As a mother, from the moment I knew I was pregnant there was no question in my mind and heart that I was carrying precious human life.

To those who think that the conversation has veered off course, sorry but I believe the subject was about the value of human life. If you can see the value of a murderer’s or rapist’s life then how do you devalue a human before they have even had a chance to know life outside of their mother’s womb? Who knows what greatness that child may have achieved had his or her life had not been cut short. But even if they do not achieve greatness they still have value as humans.

Maybe if there was more honesty about the damage that abortion does, not only in killing an innocent child, but to the mother as well, we would not be having this discussion. As a teenager, I had a friend who became pregnant and aborted her baby. Afterwards she had nightmares about the baby asking her, “Mommy, why did you kill me?” Just a glob? Not yet human? Then why the pain afterwards that my friend and many other women experience? Abort73 has a T-Shirt that says it best, “Would it bother us more if they used guns?”
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/V-A-4-guns-T.html

Great post CA, as you are a mother who has experienced giving birth to a child or children. A mom knows better than anyone. Learned that the hard way from my mom :)

I've seen childbirth twice but obviously haven't experienced it as my wife did.

I hope your friend has found peace.

ORR,

You exaggerate your influence. You didn't come close to ruining my day. If I were so fragile, I'd never post here. And despite your claim that you didn't change the subject, you clearly did. It happens frequently when this subject comes up and those of you who cannot defend the primitive act of 'an eye for an eye' head for the comfort of the diversion.

The other classic dodge is the emotional tug of the "What would you do if it were your son/daughter/wife/mother..." argument. (Though Dan starts down the emotional path with his "if you were an older/wiser procreator" angle. For what it's worth, the third baby G joined the world since my last post, and my views on the topic of abortion are the same as when I was young rahrah's age.)

Debate the issue or not, it's your choice. I couldn't care less. All I did was express my support of the letter, and I didn't think your question to me had any relevance whatsoever. No big deal -- I'm sure I've strayed from the topic before. No crime in that. But neither is pointing out that you did so.

Train Momma -

I'm not a Dr. and have never stayed at a Holiday Inn, so I don't know the actual differences between such things as "Do Not Resuscitate" vs. "Palliative Care" vs. "Hospice" or whatever, but I do not think allowing pain and suffering is generally in the cards.

Clearly we all want a "good death" ... and suggest you have no evident Terry Schaivo died a death other than that .. she was in standard hospice care. Exceptions to the good death scenario would include the addition / retraction / addition / retraction of the feeding and hydration tubes - standard medical procedures - and the command by Congress that Terry be brought before them for Testamony ..

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/HouseSubpoenas.pdf

... yea that's a briliant idea ... no it was a circus.

A natural part of human life is death; we will all get there someday ... so why do we interfere to stop it?

I have a co-worker who recently had a premie. Advanced medical science was able to save this child that only a decade ago would have been a natural stillborn .. inwhich care the Parents would have done as Parents have done since the year 4044 BC when God created the heavens and earth and molded Adam from dust: Grieved. Grieved then conceived again. Chances are the second pregnacy would have taken another natural course to full term.

Instead, the Dr. "interfered" with the natural process called Miscarriage: "the natural or spontaneous end of a pregnancy at a stage where the embryo or the fetus is incapable of surviving, generally defined in humans at a gestation of prior to 20 weeks".

Did the Dr.'s intervention keep alive someone who was dying naturally? I think the answer is "yes". Did your favorite aunt let the Dr.'s intervention and keep her alive as she was dying naturally? She made a judgement; she said "no".

You will argue the less than 20 week old child did not have the opportunity to make that judgement, and that given the choice, the baby would chose live, but you have no basis for that opinion; the in utero child with iniencephaly and anencephaly cranium bifida may disagree.

My kids, given the choice, would not have brushed their teeth. As their parent, I made that choice for them - totally with basis.

How can we argue the parents get to make some choices and for other choices you want the government to make these choices .. the same government that brought you ethanol and a command that Terry be brought before them for Testamony ..

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/HouseSubpoenas.pdf

I make no judgements but suggest these are fine lines on a slippery slope. I am not arguing for cavalier abortions .. but do not understand how the generic you cannot support individual decisions - personal and informed and compassionate - at least up to through the first 20 weeks.

I suggest if we dropped the Terry and ice-pick-in-the-back-of the head arguments .. and instead encouraged personal and informed and compassionate individual decisions - the world would be a better place.

.. or we can command Terry to testify ... (you did scroll to page 9 ... right?)

(Applause!)

Boy you guys keep late hours, how do you do it?

Congrats on #3 Howie G!! No wonder we don't hear from you too often, you and Mrs. G are outnumbered.

"Advanced medical science was able to save this child that only a decade ago would have been a natural stillborn..."

My thought, again just an opinion, is that this is a life in it's beginning, and thanks to advanced medical science he/she has that opportunity. His/her parents made that decision her just as you and I make many decisions for our kids. Mine are pretty good about brushing their teeth without hassle.

My aunt on the other hand was at the end of her life. Advanced medical science could have prolonged the inevitable and she declined.

Advanced medical science can prolonged the life of EVERYONE .. not forever .. not yet .. but for some like your Aunt ... it would haved seemed like forever.

Return of the sick joke:

An American woman suffers brain damage and becomes dependent on a feeding tube. The Hubby spends the millions won in a legal case trying to help her, all to no avail. After 8 years with no success, the husband sadly decides to have the feeding tube removed so his wife may have Eternal Life in Heaven.

The parents of this brain-dead woman opposed this decision and spend 7 years and millions of insurance dollars plus millions of public dollars continuing "life-prolonging measures" - including a command by the Federal Government that the brain-dead American woman testify before Congress.

After a total of 15 years, American woman dies.

Twenty hears later, her parents die and join in heaven their beautiful daughter who has been fully rejuvenated by Almighty God. Mom and Dad rush to her crying "TERRY!" Daughter slaps them along side of head and says, "I could been her 35 years ago."

==

In hindsight .. the husband should have rolled the hospice bed before Congress and let her testify.

Delay: "Mrs. Schaivo, if you could just tell us ... Mrs. Schaivo? You-Who .. over here ... Mrs. Schaivo, ... Mrs. Schaivo ... are you pleading the 5th ? Let the record show the witness is being uncooporative an refusing to answer any questions."

" His/her parents made that decision her just as you and I make many decisions for our kids. "

Yep. So why do you keep insisting g-men be involved?

"Abortion is Murder" ... OK .. your Aunt killed herself too .. suicide ... which is self inflicted murder and illegal in 50 states plus the District of Columbia and the nation's five territories.

Ok .. suicide is not a crime ... my bad .. only "assisted suicide" .. in 49 states plus the District of Columbia and the nation's five territories.

... but maybe should be for Bible thumpers:

"The Christian opposition to suicide hardened starting with fifth-century theologian Augustine of Hippo, who argued that offing yourself is never justifiable because it violates God's injunction "thou shalt not kill." Suicides were deemed to have committed a mortal sin and denied Christian burial ... "

Concerned America: That's an interesting question--would it indeed bother liberals if abortionists used guns? I'm willing to bet that liberals value unfettered abortion even more than they want to disarm all Americans.

Thanks, Dan. Yes, we went from man-to-man to a zone defense, and even this early in the game, we feel like we're losing sometimes. But we're enjoying it nonetheless.

Take heart, Howie! My husband and I have been outnumbered for 15 years and we are still standing. You will prevail because you have wisdom and experience--although the kids definitely have the edge when it comes to energy and speed.

Well said, mama.

ConcernedAmerican and mamaboilermaker .. With all due respect, you ask a stupid question.

“ ... willing to bet that liberals value unfettered abortion even more than they want to disarm all Americans”

what proof do you have that ALL liberals value unfettered abortion? I personally know no one – true conservative or true liberal or half breed in between – that calls for unfettered abortion. The most liberal folks I know – my wacky brother in law would be one .. hates abortion as much as you surely do. The difference is he see there might be circumstances where it makes the sense ... perhaps an undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy ... perhaps the crack ho’ with 5 kids already ...

I’ll bet you can come up with ONE situation where is makes more sense .. just one .. but by accepting just one, you leave the door open.

So now the question becomes .. who decides.

== as for gun control: May I walk around with a loaded shotgun? NO? How about an M-40? Actually, I think I can – a concealed weapon is an issue, but open is not. Would that be OK with you? Me .. a total stranger .. standing in a grocery store line with a bazooka in hand, behind you and your 5 kids ? NO? You want to disarm me – what are you a flaming liberal ?

==

Do us a favor ..watch the stereotypes .. they have limited value within honest discussion.

Actually I don't consider surgery for a tubal pregnancy to be abortion, since the intent is to save the mother's life and the death of the baby is an unfortunate side effect. The only possible outcomes for an ectopic pregnancy are:
1. mother and baby both die
2. baby dies because of surgery necessary to save mother

There is no way to save the baby in that instance, so one chooses to save the one that can be saved. That is not the same as doing a procedure for the sole purpose of eliminating the baby.

bull shit, momma .. you are writing caveats.

"true believers" take no prisoners. "true believers" write no caveats because they open the door. "true believers" do not allow the distribution of condoms to Africans ... because that would open some elusive door.

The most common outcomes for an ectopic pregnancy is only the baby dies. So you OK with making the choice ... kill a baby to save a mother.

You are pro-choice, but you just don't know it.

btw - my position is I am both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. That is not a contradiction, it is a real world assessment: Make informed decisions, live with the consequences, follow your faith, answer to God, and keep the stinking government out of our lives.

"The most common outcomes for an ectopic pregnancy is only the baby dies. "

I'm not a doctor, but I thought an untreated ectopic pregnancy ultimately bursts the fallopian tube and causes severe, life-threatening blood loss. That means surgery is necessary to save the mother's life. If I'm wrong, I apologize and am open to learning something new.

Roe got state government out of women's lives by striking down every law against abortion in every state. By that act, however, Roe simply put the federal government in the driver's seat. The courts then proceeded for years to block every restriction on abortion, including the right of parents to know that a surgical procedure was being performed on their child. To my knowledge, there is not a single restriction that NARAL supports, including parental notification.

"your Aunt killed herself too .. "

You need more sleep JDR.

You too Howie but it aint gonna happen.

You too mamab but perhaps in 5 more years.

afaik, about half of ectopic pregnancies result in a natural miscarriage. Most of the other half suffers a pill induced miscarriage. It is rare that surgery is needed and extremely rare .. but not unheard of .. that a viable baby is either recovered or could have been recovered.

My only point is that for 1/2 the situations, a choice is being made .. nothing is 100% black and white .. and while I do not disagree US law has morphed perhaps too far one way or perhaps not enough (depending on one's perspective) .. hard black and white lines are counter productive and harmful. It is a complex issue .. and imho clearly something that should be worked out with great and careful discussion and honest consultation.

But we don't do that.

Those who feign an anti-activist position as well as those who confess an activist position - BOTH try to seat Judges based on the candidates stated or assumed positions .. it is a political mess that is harmful to all that America stands for ... my opinion only of course.

==

You mention NARAL not supporting parental notification. Some say the pregnant child will go to a back alley or take some other negative path 'cause .. "if my dad finds out he'll kill me."

Who knows ... every child is different, every parent is different .. but keeping the conversation open and purposeful seems a damm good idea to me. Conversly, government intervention limits that conversation because - by definition - one-size-fit's all rules are made with lines drawn and options minimized.

==

The RU486 controversy is the same thing .. you may be one of the few that didn't screw around in college ... or get drunk and sexed up only to wake up and say .. ooopppps.

What's right? I dunno, but here is typical rhetoric: "Chemical abortions, like RU486/PG, give supporters of abortion a chance to change the image of abortion, making it seem as simple as taking a pill ... the objective is still the destruction of a unique human life -- is of little consequence to abortion's promoters as long as their false perception holds."

"supporters of abortion" "abortion's promoters" .. ??? What the hell is all that? Is that like "supporters of the team?" GO Boilermakers!!!

No it is deliberately divisive decision-making by someone not in the pregnant woman's shoes.

==

P.S. - Sorry to have jumped you earlier. JDR

So your Aunt DIDN'T killed herself ?

What do you call it, Dan .. how does what she decided differ from the Eskimo choosing to be Polar Bear Food?

.. I might have wacky sleep habits .. but this was some hilarious original writing:

Delay: "Mrs. Schaivo, if you could just tell us ... Mrs. Schaivo? You-Who .. over here ... Mrs. Schaivo, ... Mrs. Schaivo ... are you pleading the 5th ? Let the record show the witness is being uncooporative an refusing to answer any questions."

Interestingly enough, Eskimos were prone to killing babies too.

"P.S. - Sorry to have jumped you earlier. JDR"

Not a problem. If I couldn't take it, I'd keep my mouth (keyboard) shut.

Right now I'm trying to type while a kitten crawls all over me--my pro-life daughter rescued the critter from somebody who said they were taking it to the pound. Wish she'd rescued a hound dog instead!

Yes, Dan, I do need more sleep. After baby graduates from high school (12 more years) I plan to sleep for about 6 months, then spend another 6 months on the porch in a rocking chair with a hound dog and some sweet tea and a pile of good books.

"Eskimos were prone to killing babies too."

I did not know that, but it does not surprise me. In subsistence cultures cultures ya do what cha gotta do to survive .. Fat and Happy America seems so remote from that reality of others.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080508/FOREIGN/121350431

Knud Rasmussen, a famous early Arctic explorer reported meeting one Eskimo woman who hand borne 20 children but had personally killed 10 of them at birth. Female babies were more likely to be killed (part of TLC's war on women?)

Eskimos were also pretty open about sharing their wives (and often they had more than one). A man might lend a visiting guest his wife for the night. And a dominant man might demand and get regular access to other men's wives. However, if a woman didn't like the arrangement she was in, she was free to crawl into whatever igloo she wished.

Anyway.

... similar arrangements have been made ofer the centuries as a way of spreding the genetic pool .. the deal where royalty from one european county would team up with another country - bonds sealed in marraige (with the resulting broading of genetic leadership base) - was one of those arrangements ... many of the polygamy cultures had similar goals.

... kinda puts the modern version of sexually repressed Catholic Priesthood into a new perspective, huh?

http://www.libchrist.com/bible/catholiccelibacy.html