 |
|
“It is Mexico where Nembutal is most readily available,” says “The Peaceful Pill Handbook,” a book that lays out methods to end one’s life. Co-written by Philip Nitschke, founder of Exit International, an Australian group that assists people who want to end their lives early, the book is banned in Australia and New Zealand. In the United States, though, it is only a few mouse clicks away online.
The book, as well as seminars that Nitschke offers, lays out strategies for dying. The most trouble-free and painless form of suicide, he contends, is to buy Mexican pentobarbital, which goes by brand names like Sedal-Vet, Sedalphorte and Barbithal.
Those in search of the drug, so-called death tourists, scout out the veterinary pharmacies that abound in Tijuana. Nitschke’s book, however, provides glossy photos of the many versions of pentobarbital that are most suitable for suicide. Buying it can be as easy as showing the pictures to a clerk and paying as little as $30 for a dose.
Morality Nazis will piss and moan over suicide as they always do.
My answer is the same as it for abortion: Not in favor? Don’t try it!
#55, RBG,
Although you are making a fool of yourself on several fronts, I will restrict myself to our prior discussion.
Cite ONE case of a 28 week old fetus being aborted. You haven’t because you can’t. Yet you suggested they were being aborted. They aren’t. This is a strawman argument continually used by the anti-choice crowd to belittle a legal option women have.
Canada has no restriction on abortion. Yet you can’t point out any 28 week abortions. Most American states do have restrictions on late term abortions of some kind. Nope, you can’t point out any 28th week abortions there either.
I get a charge at how pro-abortionists indicate how unthinkable and outrageous it would be to terminate a healthy 28+ week unborn child, but then not reflect society’s revulsion of such things into law.
Show me a physician who will perform an abortion after 21 weeks simply as a birth control method. I don’t know about Canada, but in the US it wouldn’t happen as most states restrict third trimester abortions. A doctor would only do this if the life of the fetus was already terminated or the life of the mother was extremely threatened. By 28 weeks most physicians would induce the birth. BUT, only if necessary to save the life of the mother or the fetus.
Depending upon the fetal age, preemies, or premature babies will not be in good health. Their lungs will still be undeveloped. Their fat layer may be unformed. Their immune system is extremely weak or even nonexistent. Their bones are very fragile. Their digestive tract is not prepared to take in nourishment yet. The heart and vascular system is not strong enough for the shock of life outside the womb. The skin has not formed a protective coating. And a myriad of other health problems can exist. Yet you dismiss all that with an unproven bonding technique. Plainly put, the “kangaroo” method will not cure a compromised immune system or add surfactant to the lungs.
I say again, if there are no 28+ week abortions because the concept is so reviled,
Again, show me that there are fetuses being aborted at 28 weeks. Why would you want a law that usurps the mother’s right to live in favor of the fetus that might be killing her? Why do you hate women so much?
#62–RBG==dismiss what you haven’t read and call it frightening. Your lack of insight actually sickens me but I’ll give it one sentence. You rely on “viability” of the the fetus (sic–why not “person”)as being relevant. Why do you balance the fetus against the mother at that point? Its so frightening.
Contraception?==prohibiting the human being called sperm from uniting with the human being called egg? Why do you balance reality that way? Frightening.
Double down Dolt!
RBG,
You didn’t happen to notice that the only one in four of your kangaroo articles that actually is peer reviewed does not talk about fetuses earlier than 32 weeks, did you? I’m just saying that perhaps you don’t even know how to read your own links.
Anyway, the point is moot. It’s not about whether the baby can survive outside the mother, unless you are suggesting inducing labor and taking care of the preemies yourself. Are you doing so? Seems like a bad idea to me.
<joke>
Q: How many anti-choicers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Just one to change it, but half a dozen or more to argue about whether light begins at the instant you screw it in.
</joke>
BTW, please stop using the term pro-abortionist. There’s no such thing. No one here is advocating the use of abortion as birth control. In fact, it is the pro-choice crowd that is most likely to favor sex ed and birth control, thus dramatically reducing the number of abortions.
Presumably, you would support a law that would require health insurance and medicaid to cover contraception, right? And you would also support real sex ed in schools, right? These are the things that reduce the use of abortion a hell of a lot more than say abstinence only, which has only increased STDs and abortions.
Why not fight abortion at the source? Why not reduce unintended pregnancies instead of legislating away women’s rights?
#67–Scott==thats one of the most unfunny jokes I have heard. You must have made it up yourself?
I take your word that no one has yet advanced a pro-abortion position, so I will do so now.
I believe the more moral position is to abort all kinds of babies who have birth defects. More people might agree with deformatives that are truly horrible, but my own bar would actually be quite low. I’m looking for the “best” babies possible, not just those who are viable.
Why don’t I make my opinion the law and force it on other people as RBG would do with his preferences? Because I think people should be as free of government coercion as possible.
So what is the compromise position at all possible between pro-life and pro choice? There really isn’t one because the compromise has already been made and the pro-lifers just won’t accept the compromise.
You see, the compromise that is first made is between the pro-life and the pro-abortion philosophies. Yes, the compromise is pro-choice position is pro-choice. Leave other people alone and live your life the way you choose.
Freedom.
Bobbo, Roe v Wade set up tests to allow for the banning of abortion. You have to consider Roe v Wade in combination with Doe v Bolton to get the complete ban on abortion restrictions. It’s possible to be both pro-choice and consider Roe v Wade bad law, and there are many legal scholars of this view. That there is another life there in which the state has an interest is a relevant fact, and for the courts to come in and say, forget the history, we think abortion should be legal, doesn’t strike me as a good decision.
#69–Mike==I agree. I think Roe v Wade is bad law. Good social policy although I would have gone much farther than the court did.
The majority of Americans support a womans right to control her own body/to abort early pregnancies/to have access to birth control. The Supreme Court has made that the law of the land. Even conservative justices signal they would be uncomfortable upsetting the precedent.
So–no body likes Roe v Wade, each side not getting everything they want. If such a thing has to be settled by a Court of Law, what better outcome could you hope for other than the universe to be just the way you want and screw everyone else?
Bobo said “The majority of Americans support a womans right to control her own body”
Getting back to what this tread was about. Why do not all people men/women have the right to control their bodys?
#68 – bobbo,
Well said. But, no, I didn’t make up that joke. As for your pro-abortion stance on defectives, I think that has to be the parent’s choice, and obviously so do you. I would certainly not want to take the choice away.
Perhaps you have a point about wanting only the best babies, but that cries eugenics. I think many parents already make the right choice when a defect is detected early enough. I would not alter the way things are done.
RBG,
You continue to amaze me. You harp on one argument nearly indefinitely despite the fact that the number of cases of abortions over 21 weeks is just 1.4% and that percentage drops precipitously with each passing week.
Why do you concentrate on taking away what few rights we have left rather than on real meaningful reductions of abortion?
If, as you say, sex is purely for procreation, then please explain to me why just 0.4% of sex acts result in procreation. From the good folks at the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, but citing World Health Organization statistics:
(Note that they stayed balanced and fair, and so did I.)
So, while most of us were started by intercourse, I think it is clear that this is not the primary purpose of sex. If it is, evolution did a terrible job in making it highly inefficient.
Further, I think you fail, completely and utterly, to understand that real sex ed does not encourage sex. I got very good sex education in my high school. They taught about the various forms of birth control and their effectiveness. They dispelled myths about inability to get pregnant on the first time, about withdrawal and the rhythm method as birth control, and others. Unfortunately, AIDS was not yet known, so disease transmission prevention via condoms was not discussed. However, what it did do for me was make me responsible. I have never had sex without birth control.
I would like to add that it is nice that you added your real reason for your vehemence on the subject. Thank you for sharing that you have become totally biased on the issue by being in the unfortunate position of having an extremely premature baby. I wish you all the best with your child.
I was also a preemie, though just 6 weeks early, which was a lot back then. Had my mother aborted me, I would not hold a grudge. I would simply not be. My father has already hinted to me that if having children was more of a choice back then, he probably would not have wanted to. He respects my decision. I guess if things had been different then, I would not be. So unbe it. Who would care? I know I wouldn’t.
I can’t remember the name of the comedian who said this, probably because I’ve only heard it indirectly from a friend, so the quote may be a total misquote. I hope to at least get the gist.
Can i get a round for the house.
#71–RBG==so you had a premie? Not that it helps or that you asked, but I wish you and yours the happiest of experiences as a result of your CHOICE. You should be happy you live in a country where pro-abortionists like myself haven’t made a law that all premies should be euthanized. My attitude and morals are pro-abortion “but” I also have a strong personal freedom interest and so recognizing the rights of my fellow citizens, I default to pro-choice and allow you to make the decisions for your own family. I think my position is a minority position==most pro-choices are actually pro-life but recognize many women will make the choice to abort, and give them that choice.
Its only fascist like YOU who are indeed anti-choice who force their morality on other people. Stop being a hypocrite.
RBG==when does the light turn on? When the coil heats up enough to emit light or only when that light hits the photo-receptors of the brain and later perceived as light? Is light only the visible spectrum or does it include infra-red? Good analogy for dim-bulbs.
#72–Slovenia==on the end of life issues, as stated above, the state cannot control people. While a few may get to the point that they wish to die and don’t have the ability, physically or emotionally, to commit suicide-those cases are rare.
#76, Bobbo,
(with credit to Scott)
Now you have me thinking. If someone closes a circuit that allows electrons to flow through a filament in a zero oxygen atmosphere, thus heating it to a white hot state emitting photons, but there is no one to see it can it still be called light?
If the electronic current only heats the filament to a sub-white hot temperature, thus emitting more red wave length photons, could we admit god failed to create good light?
If the green LED on my coffee machine is still emitting photons and I can see the bottom of my cup should I …
8)
#67
Q: How many anti-choicers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Just one to change it, but half a dozen or more to argue about whether light begins at the instant you screw it in.
In my experience with “anti-choice” I would agree with the above joke. They argue, but not with each other. We say life begins at conception, done, end. Its a statement, not empirically provable. The argument is with the “anti-life” (to continue on with the anti theme.) stance of the other side.
But I realize that this is basically an irreconcilable position. The pro-life and pro choice come at it from different angles, and different philosophical positions/stances.
Its not easy either way. (Much like life, I’d say.
#77–Fusion==yes, only idiots think such questions are “self evident” even when the majority of people disagree they have no doubt.
Its why idiots get elected to president in democracies. People cling to simple statements without an appreciation of the complexity that may be involved OR that there are other issues making the question at hand almost irrelevant, but at least superseded.
73 Mis Scott, 75 Mr. Fusion
Yikes. 1.4% of over 21 weeks? Pretty sad. I hope there are only about 100 or so pregnancies out there. Imagine what the actual number must be. Bet it’s a bigger number than the palatable “1.4.”
And how may terminations are performed because someone’s been convinced by ignorant people and by artificial law that an unborn baby is merely an inconsequential sack of actual mother’s cells until literally, magically transformed into a unique human in the birth canal? That’s the Canadian view, anyway.
Well I’m here to tell you the shocking news that from real experiences in an NICU, the inconvenient truth is that these 28, 29, 30+ week preemie babies that are gazing and bonding on their mother’s breasts are the same humans that are growing in the womb at 28, 29, 30+ weeks. If they’re lucky enough. That’s the difference. You just can’t see them like in the preemie ward. None of the extreme hardship cases can change that.
Mother’s don’t get “pro-choice” on their children. At least some people believe that.
RBG
And with that, I’m done on this particular side-topic.
RBG
#80–RBG–you say: “Mother’s don’t get “pro-choice” on their children. At least some people believe that.” /// Good thing you are wrong on that and we live in the USA with Constitutional Rights of Privacy where well meaning but jack booted thugs nonetheless like you would put a life of misery on families forced to bear unwanted children.
The majority is against your fascist opinion, and so is the law of the land.
But thanks for demonstrating that “the light of freedom loving people” sometimes doesn’t come on at all.
75 Mr. Fusion
Except I did miss your post.
Let’s not throw out the babies with the bathwater. Nice try.
Here’s the latest news:
“In general, outcomes for premature babies are very good.”
The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto.
http://tinyurl.com/57dhma
Any preemie stat can be skewed if early enough, or based on percentages comparing already low absolute numbers. The birth envelope continues to push lower. 28 week preemies used to freak out NCIUs. Now routine.
“Almost all premature babies are given Intensive Care Unit care.”
That’s pretty hilarious, Fusion. Maybe that’s why almost all preemies are in the NICU – with a host of tubes sticking out of them, replacing womb care. You think? Your point is nonsensical.
RBG
73 Mis Scott
I said evolutionary sex is used for procreation. And those forces are almost completely overwhelming. It doesn’t “care” or “know” if there is a contraceptive involved. Hell, it doesn’t even “care” if you use sex to wash your car. Its billion-year programming has one aim: to try – in its imperfect way – to get you breeding. (Wonder what will eventually happen to the genetic strains of humans that aren’t into breeding?)
Anyway, that’s what teens must start with. And popular belief and culture supports the inevitable negative consequences.
Did you ever get that message in your sex class?
Current sex education teaches you how to build a safer bomb. And I’m completely for that, but it additionally (and suspiciously) glosses over one of its most effective tools to prevent the bomb from occasionally going off: responsibility. But that’s a reflection of our culture today where “gettin’ it on” & “if it feels good, do it” is all that matters. (Hmmm, sounds like evolution.)
(Btw, my 780 gram premature & healthy kid scores 98 percentile on intelligence tests against all kids (continuing research on outcomes for babies under 800 grams) but I don’t see that as indicative of anything much, except good care. My views are supported by what I saw in the NCIU with my own two eyes, upsetting as the experience was at times.)
RBG
#83–RBG==Gee, your reportage is “so” stilted. Zealotry or by design?
Your referenced link actually isn’t as wrong as you post. Just read past the first sentence and get to morbidity. They try to hide the facts rhetorically but the truth is pretty much still stated: “the success rate in this regard is not as overwhelming as the dramatic improvement in mortality.”==in other words, what you call a success is in fact a dramatic and tragic failure for the families involved.
You have a right to whatever values you think affirm your life==just stop forcing them on those who have every legitimate and rational reason to believe the opposite.
#84 – RBG,
No. I didn’t get your message in my sex ed class, thankfully. In fact, my teacher probably knew that sexual reproduction does not go back a billion years, so would not have made that obvious mistake that shows far less knowledge of evolution than you profess.
As for responsibility, I believe I was indeed taught to behave responsibly. As I’ve said, I have never had sex without birth control.
As for the 1.4%, do you not see that the vast majority of those cases are likely birth defects and health of the mother? And, that was 21 weeks. I couldn’t find the number for 28 weeks. By 28 weeks, I’m sure the number is dramatically lower.
So, yes, the 1.4% still indicates thousands of fetuses over 21 weeks old, but makes no mention of the circumstances. Why on earth would you make the obviously flawed assumption that these are healthy mothers with healthy babies that agonized over this for 21 weeks and then said, “What the fuck?! Maybe I should just get an abortion.” Don’t you think that’s a bit far fetched? Perhaps one case said that somewhere. But, I highly doubt it’s a statistically significant number.
And, you still have not found the record on that one case, despite having been asked numerous times, so perhaps there really are zero!
Lastly, please provide a copy of a pamphlet from Canada backing up your outrageously stupid characterization of their medical system. I haven’t heard that they cite miracles.
86. Misanthro:
Oh, and what “record” would that be now? The ones that state an abortion was necessary because of “really, really – I mean really -personal unhappiness” involved? You still haven’t provided me with the private doctor’s records yet.
The first fossilized evidence of sexually reproducing organisms is from eukaryotes of the Stenian period, about 1.2 to 1 billion years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_reproduction
This is going to come as a bit of a surprise, but guess where you come from…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote
RBG
RBG,
I know that I am a eukaryote, and proud of it. I didn’t realize sexual reproduction predated the Cambrian. My mistake. Thanks for the correction.
As for the doctor’s records, you made the claim. You’re supposed to back it up. You claim that women are having 28+ week abortions left and right on whims. Where did you get that idea? Show us some data.
Just to help the discussion along, this website charts the abortion rate declining to about 1% for fetuses of 21 weeks and greater==so the relevant numbers can’t be “too” large even though just one would be a holocaust!!!
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm
RBG,
From your Toronto Sick Kids Hospital link. Heck, it is even in the same paragraph.
As a result, some premature babies who would have died in the past now survive, but may have lifelong problems. Medical professionals make this distinction using the words “morbidity” and “mortality.”
Hey, next paragraph,
At the same time, there are limits to the medical technology and techniques available in the NICU; some babies who are born too soon are too small to either save at all or save without serious disability or morbidity.
Now compare that to the links I made in #75. Gee, guess what ??? They say the same thing.
Now what was the point you were trying to prove?
#5,
Unfortunately, humans who could easily be born & live at any point 28+ weeks if they hadn’t been terminated
#18,
a child can be born and placed on the mother’s breast and it looks at the mother’s face & eyes (as seen in video of my 28 1/2 week born child),
#28
But, as you demonstrate, abortion extremists know only to speak of the rape/coat-hanger extreme scenarios. Like that should govern the overwhelming majority of cases. When offered the gestational middle ground, as I have above, pro-abortionists change the subject mighty fast.
#38,
Now, in view of your ignorance of these matters, do you want to challenge my assertion that a preemie can direct & hold its gaze intently on a mother’s face?
Unlike a little more than a decade ago, 28 weeks is handled relatively routinely in the NIU. 23-25 weeks is something else. And sure there are horror stories, but mostly not.
#53,
As it happens, this is because that is my point. That it is perfectly legal to terminate such viable functioning humans that can live in or out of the mother.
#55,
I get a charge at how pro-abortionists indicate how unthinkable and outrageous it would be to terminate a healthy 28+ week unborn child, but then not reflect society’s revulsion of such things into law.
#59,
I will anticipate your Roe v Wade by noting that society law does not equal science law. A law could just as easily state that a genetically biological woman is a man. Wait. It does.
Geeze is that fucked up. Apples and oranges until there are grapes and raspberries. Oh wait, how about kumquats?
#62,
When lawyers begin with: “…had no need to rule on at what stage of development a fetus was a human being” you know you’re headed toward something apart from the real world.
So are you trying to tell us when the light bulb is screwed in?
#65,
Whether out of desperate spite because of a former lover, a new life opportunity or some other supreme selfishness, or a multitude of other non-life threatening reasons the mother can abort, at 28 weeks, or any time, at least in Canada.
#71,
The other human involved, the terminated unborn child has no choice in the matter.
#80,
And how may terminations are performed because someone’s been convinced by ignorant people and by artificial law that an unborn baby is merely an inconsequential sack of actual mother’s cells until literally, magically transformed into a unique human in the birth canal?
#83
“Almost all premature babies are given Intensive Care Unit care.”
That’s pretty hilarious, Fusion. Maybe that’s why almost all preemies are in the NICU – with a host of tubes sticking out of them, replacing womb care. You think? Your point is nonsensical.
Which brings us back to the bullshit you posted in #5 humans who could easily be born & live at any point 28+ weeks if they hadn’t been terminated
Premature babies are NOT healthy babies. It takes a lot of care in an intensive care unit to keep them alive. They end up with much higher rates of most illnesses. Your idea of “easily be born and live” is totally unrealistic. Having “kangaroo care” with a bunch of tubes running from the baby is not a good sign.
(Btw, my 780 gram premature & healthy kid scores 98 percentile on intelligence tests against all kids (continuing research on outcomes for babies under 800 grams)
Good for your baby. I wish you well. If, as you wrote, this is against ALL babies I call bullshit. If it compared to just babies under 800 grams then OK. Regardless, I wish you, your wife, and baby well.
But you still haven’t pointed out any instances of 28 week old fetuses being aborted.
I’m done. You’re toast.
90 Fusion
Just tell yourself over and over again to make yourself feel good:
“In general, outcomes for premature babies are very good.”
The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto.
http://tinyurl.com/57dhma
That’s the “very easily” I’m talking about.
Yes, some die, some have problems, even trivial ones. Especially ultra-early preemies. This is surprising as the technology is pushed? You’re going somewhere with this?
So if it obviously won’t affect anything because no one in their right mind would be involved in such a thing, let’s make those kinds of 28+ week non-life-threatening, convenient abortions illegal, like all preemptive laws are crafted to reflect and codify right and wrong.
RBG
#91–RBG==you say: “let’s make those kinds of 28+ week non-life-threatening, convenient abortions illegal, like all preemptive laws are crafted to reflect and codify right and wrong.” ///
And THAT has already been done. Such abortions are most illegal–not “convenient.”
Such abortions are not allowed except for the health of the mother, rape, and incest. So, you want to force a 16 yo to ruin the rest of her life to have her inbred rape child because she came to the decision too late?==Probably because of religious nuts not giving her the information and support she needed earlier in the process?
Very humane. I hope you wind up working for the TSA.
RBG,
You still haven’t pointed out any 28 week old abortions or any doctors who would perform one. Although I know of none, I can visualize that such a situation might develop and one might be necessary.
It must be a sad life you live when YOU, as a man, can decide what a woman is allowed to do with her body. How many preemies are YOU willing to pay for out of YOUR pocket? Are YOU willing to go tell some husband that his wife had to die because YOU, in your infinite wisdom, decided the stillborn baby’s life is worth more? What about the children; how will YOU explain their mommy died so she could carry a baby to term for YOU?
*
How about when it is well known that the baby will not live after birth? Such as the brain failed to develop or extreme spina bifida. Something easily detected via ultra-sound at 21 weeks. Will you force the mother to carry to term? What if the baby would have such a deformed body they would need high intensity care all their short life? Are you in favor of forcing a mother to birth something for her to anguish over?
While you revel in your successful outcome, not all births go so well. Sometimes when the nurses remove the IVs, it is from a cooling body. The longer the mother has with her baby, the harder it is. Do you care?
93 Mr. Fusion
It must be even more of a sad life when YOU as a human being can decide that another human entity, an unborn child with its own distinct genetics, can live or die based upon your definition of convenience and power. Let’s take out all the down & out sleeping bums and other hardship defects in the city and sweep that problem under the rug too.
There are childless couples just agonizing to take newborns. There are not enough… for some reason. And billions of dollars in this world, if only from religious people, to take care of kids.
The fallacy in your argument that easily exposes you as a power-mongering fraud is that you would still be for abortion even if healthy foetuses (the general preemie case), as determined by MRIs, etc., with no danger to the mother could be excluded. Just as long as we don’t inconvenience the mother, huh?
As I said above, it the mother’s life is at risk, she gets priority. I’d support termination in the severe defect case you state. (But not because of minor things that might cause life-long hardship, like homosexuality, etc.) These are all your smoke screens to mask your power agenda. My position is to protect the general, obvious cases and we’ll argue about the grey areas later. In developing life, by definition there must be grey areas. But you don’t throw out the babies with the bath water.
92 bobbo. I’m mainly directing my comments towards Canada which still believes you are suddenly transformed into a human only after the Great Pumpkin spreads pixie dust or some other magical process that can only happen during a delivery. I suspect it is similar in the US for 28 week unborn but couldn’t say for sure.
So, you want to force a 16 yo to ruin the rest of her life to have her inbred rape child because she came to the decision too late?
You perfectly illustrate an example why “the decision” can’t be limited to mothers for the sake of power politics. Show her an NICU, explain about the unique life involved & ask again. Then enact the law I’m requesting real quick.
RBG