It does seem to be a sickeningly awkward inconsistency that we can kill some people but insist that others live when they don't want to and have pleaded for mercy
Capital punishment - yes or no ? Page 7
I think the UK is pretty consistent. The state has not the power to take life in any circumstances.
And for every Tony Nicklinson there's other people who'd feel pressured into ending their lives early through guilt or an unreasoned fear of suffering.
Quote: AJGO @ August 23 2012, 11:30 AM BSTIt does seem to be a sickeningly awkward inconsistency that we can kill some people but insist that others live
Not to mention abortion. It's difficult being pro-choice and anti-death penalty and pro-assisted suicide - you either value human life or you don't - or you hypocritically pick and choose and lambast the opinions of others.
or perhaps there are no absolutes?
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ August 23 2012, 11:49 AM BSTNot to mention abortion. It's difficult being pro-choice and anti-death penalty and pro-assisted suicide - you either value human life or you don't - or you hypocritically pick and choose and lambast the opinions of others.
Only if you think a collection of non-sentient cells is the same as a person, and only if you think forcing someone to die against their wishes is the same as allowing someone to die when they want to but can't do it themselves.
Quote: sootyj @ August 23 2012, 11:50 AM BSTor perhaps there are no absolutes?
The death penalty debate was sparked over the deaths of a couple of kids. To an anti-abortion campaigner, that's a drop in the ocean compared to the wholesale slaughter of dozens of babies a month throuhout the UK.
Valuing human life is an absolute, we have many texts, both religious and legal to back this up. It's pretty much a universal given that murder is bad m'kay.
Quote: Harridan @ August 23 2012, 11:51 AM BSTOnly if you think a collection of non-sentient cells is the same as a person, and only if you think forcing someone to die against their wishes is the same as allowing someone to die when they want to but can't do it themselves.
What I personally think is neither here nor there, but the moral juxtaposition still stands. You cannot blithely play favourites with murder and then criticise others for doing the same.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ August 23 2012, 12:03 PM BSTThe death penalty debate was sparked over the deaths of a couple of kids. To an anti-abortion campaigner, that's a drop in the ocean compared to the wholesale slaughter of dozens of babies a month throuhout the UK.
Valuing human life is an absolute, we have many texts, both religious and legal to back this up. It's pretty much a universal given that murder is bad m'kay.
What I personally think is neither here nor there, but the moral juxtaposition still stands. You cannot blithely play favourites with murder and then criticise others for doing the same.
You are redefining 'murder' to suit a moral absolute. Generally it is only the hyper-religious who think that all life is the same and that ending any life in any circumstance is wrong. There is nothing hypocritical about viewing the world in a more nuanced way than the way you describe. If I criticise people for having abortions and then have an abortion myself I would be a hypocrite.
Quote: Harridan @ August 23 2012, 11:51 AM BSTOnly if you think a collection of non-sentient cells is the same as a person, and only if you think forcing someone to die against their wishes is the same as allowing someone to die when they want to but can't do it themselves.
That's a dangerous argument.
As anti abortionists would say after some months a fetus is an autonomous life that could at quite an early stage live outside of the womb.
Quote: sootyj @ August 23 2012, 12:10 PM BSTThat's a dangerous argument.
As anti abortionists would say after some months a fetus is an autonomous life that could at quite an early stage live outside of the womb.
Which is why late-term abortions are illegal.
Quote: Harridan @ August 23 2012, 12:09 PM BSTYou are redefining 'murder' to suit a moral absolute.
You are attempting to change the meaning of 'murder' to fit an intellectual argument. Deliberately taking a human life is murder. To do it legally, we call it justifiable homicide, it is still murder, just sanctioned.
And then you get stuck in the uncomfortable world of what date?
But if you say its just cells, then you're suggesting very early term abortion.
I remember reading about this guy just after his murder. Uncomfortable stuff.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ August 23 2012, 12:15 PM BSTYou are attempting to change the meaning of 'murder' to fit an intellectual argument. Deliberately taking a human life is murder. To do it legally, we call it justifiable homicide, it is still murder, just sanctioned.
'murder' implies the illegal and unjustifiable taking of a person's life, which is why it is only used in that context. We have a wide vocabulary because one word isn't enough to describe our varied world...
Quote: sootyj @ August 23 2012, 12:15 PM BSTAnd then you get stuck in the uncomfortable world of what date?
But if you say its just cells, then you're suggesting very early term abortion.
I remember reading about this guy just after his murder. Uncomfortable stuff.
Well, I was being hyperbolic when I said 'a collection of cells', but I don't at all think that abortion is the same as murder or execution. The cut off date is a complicated and difficult issue that cleverer people than me decide 
In my opinion, though, sentience is the important factor, not whether it looks like a baby.
EDIT: I also don't think that the George Tiller 'controversies' are bad at all (at least as far as that wiki page indicates). He performed late term abortions where severe or fatal birth defects were detected. That doesn't mean downs syndrome or a missing limb, it means organs outside the body and deformations that would require lifelong intensive care. The other late term abortions were where the mother would suffer "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function". I don't think women should have to give birth at that kind of cost to their own health. He appears to have been cleared of all involvement with the woman who died.
I suppose my view is a bit more primitive. All animals humans included use some form of violence to control their fertility.
Scare a field mouse and it'll eat its babies to have the energy to escape, lions eat their rival cubs to bring the females back into heat.
Quote: Harridan @ August 23 2012, 12:22 PM BST'murder' implies the illegal and unjustifiable taking of a person's life, which is why it is only used in that context. We have a wide vocabulary because one word isn't enough to describe our varied world...
We do have a wide vocabularly, that is often used to justify immoral or illegal acts.
If the Chinese government forcibly peform abortions on early term pregnant women, are they murdering babies or merely taking away a few cells? Is it no worse then having a yeast infection forcibly removed or is it denying a right to life?
Once you begin to intellectualise murder, and subvert language to justify these acts, then you are on very dangerous ground.
Quote: sootyj @ August 23 2012, 12:31 PM BSTI suppose my view is a bit more primitive. All animals humans included use some form of violence to control their fertility.
Lots of animals eat their own babies and their own shit. So whilst we might be part of the same genus, we are definitely not the same species. You are comparing apples to space shuttles on this one sooty.
Quote: sootyj @ August 23 2012, 12:31 PM BSTI suppose my view is a bit more primitive. All animals humans included use some form of violence to control their fertility.
Scare a field mouse and it'll eat its babies to have the energy to escape, lions eat their rival cubs to bring the females back into heat.
I don't think abortion involves having to eat the foetus...