 |
|
“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!
Back to the GOP platform, page 38:
Page 43:
I’m sure that will be a comfort to someone who must chose between health care and food.
Again, the 47 million people with no health insurance at all are not worried about tax deductibility. They are below the poverty line. They probably pay little or no tax now and still can’t make ends meet. Does the GOP think that no one is below the poverty line? With a focus on affordability, clearly the Republican party (and the Democratic one these days too) does not believe that low income people really need health care. Without preventative medicine, we are saying that those with very low income can just die. And, die they do. This is a big part of the reason that we have the lowest life expectancy of any developed democratic nation.
This policy does not recognize human life as important. This is true of both parties, admittedly.
A true pro-life stance would provide health care to all.
Um … The Iraq War. Could anything be a stronger demonstration that human life is worthless than a war for oil? 100,000+ people have been killed in this war so far.
No weapons of mass destruction were ever found.
No Iraqis were involved in the attacks of 9/11.
And, U.S. intelligence reports show that 16 U.S. intelligence agencies report that Americans are less safe than before as a direct result of the Iraq war.
I’m done for the night. Let me know if you want to hear other policies of the Republican party that are inconsistent with placing value on human life.
#18, RBG,
if 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), such humans are worth saving.
Bullshit !!!
If your child was born at only 28 ½ weeks gestation, (s)he would NOT be placed upon the mother’s breast. To do so could be a death sentence. Instead, the child should be immediately put into an incubator. As the lungs are the last required organ to develop, premature babies almost all have undeveloped lungs. At seven months that would have been a guarantee.
The babies eyes would also be undeveloped and not only unable to see, but probably unable to open. Full term babies don’t recognize anything until about one month of age. At best, they distinguish between light and dark.
In post #5 you wrote:
… humans who could easily be born & live at any point 28+ weeks …
Not true. Babies born at that time will be quite sick and run a much higher risk of death. Many won’t survive at all. Suggesting it can be done “easily” is total bullshit. While medical technology continues to make advances, it is extremely difficult to care for a baby weighing two pounds or less.
Most babies born that young suffer from cerebral palsy, respiratory problems, gastrointestinal problems, infections, mental retardation, blindness and vision problems, and behavior problems at much higher rates than full term babies.
You went on to add:
… if they hadn’t been terminated don’t get that option.
I would really like you anti-choice to provide some evidence that 28 week old fetuses are being routinely aborted. Of course, every time the armpits claim that, I ask for proof it happens. No proof or instance is ever given. Why? Simply because 28 week old fetuses are very rarely ever aborted.
Yet that is routinely presented as a fact. It isn’t. If a 28 week fetus is aborted, it will be because of severe complications that will harm the mother or the fetus is terminated.
Why do wing nuts like to lie so much ?
#26, MikeN;
Your argument is still a logical fallacy. Got any evidence to back that up? Are more people speeding since the national speed limits went up? Did the murder rate go up in Oregon after their assisted suicide law? Are you against the death penalty since it obviously increases the number of homicides under your logic?
And, since this is probably what you’re trying to bait us into anyway, did the murder rate go up after abortion was legalized?
Got any facts at all to back up your claims?
39 MS
Innocent life is sacred within the boundaries of what’s economical. Clearly no one would spend everyone’s last dime attempting to extend a life. Not even that of the most innocent & precious of children. Nor would most people hesitate to kill someone as necessary for self-defense. (An example of not-so-innocent life.) So the only option left is that you demonstrate a misunderstanding re what is meant by pro-life as you likewise wishfully misunderstand the rest of the party platform.
The Iraqis made an unprovoked attack and invasion of an important strategic ally, Kuwait. I seem to recall Canada fighting and dying in Afghanistan after an attack on New York City. New York City? And after taking the Stanley Cup from Vancouver, too.
It would be nice if all millions-upon-millions of us citizens could have our own political party representing each and every one of our exact interests in elections. But last I looked there are, in fact, but a very few parties capable of obtaining such governmental power. Such a drag. I’ll leave it to you to consider what that means in terms of political compromise in exchange for some measure of power.
RBG
#35, YOu clearly misunderstood my post. None of your examples follow from my logic.
The last checkout shooter.
See Ya !
RBG, vast majority of ‘partial birth abortions’ are from 22-24 weeks. I’m curious as to whether Fusion would support an outright ban for later than 28 weeks.
Got a cousin who didn’t want a food tube. He hasn’t eaten in week now. Not sure if he’s aware of anything or not. My father went through the same thing.
When you are in your eighties and dieing taking longer doesn’t make it any better.
The whole point of legalizing abortion is so a woman can choose. Why not give all of us that right? What me and my doctor decide should be the end of it.
#36 – RBG,
The Iraqis made an unprovoked attack and invasion of an important strategic ally, Kuwait. I seem to recall Canada fighting and dying in Afghanistan after an attack on New York City. New York City? And after taking the Stanley Cup from Vancouver, too.
I was talking about our current Iraq war, a war which Iraq did absolutely nothing to provoke. I have no love at all for Sodamn Insane. However, none of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqis. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. We had no business fighting Iraq to deal with Saudi and Afghan terrorists. This whole paragraph of yours is utter nonsense.
Oh, and learn to read. Your post #34 has no relation to Mr. Fusion’s assertion that the vast majority of abortions are much earlier than 28 weeks. Here are the real statistics from CDC’s abortion surveillance.
Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2004
So, the percentage obviously drops off precipitously with increasing age of the fetus, especially above 13 weeks, the time before which 88% of all abortions are performed. With 1.4% at greater than 21 weeks, I think it obvious that the number at greater than 28 weeks will be even less than that. I do not think this is where you need to concentrate your efforts. Clearly the vast majority of women make a decision long before your 28 week cut-off. To me, it would seem obvious that of the 1.4% above 21 weeks, most are because of some complication, rather than an inability to make up one’s mind.
Either way though, the question still comes back to why you think you have the right to legislate the use of a woman’s body.
#40 – MikeN,
Can we use medical terminology instead of deliberately charged political terminology. Partial birth abortion was a term devised by republican politicians for its charged nature in getting people to vote against it. The medical term is “in tact dilation and extraction” or IDX. Check google scholar for the types of cases in which it is used. It is not a common procedure.
RBG,
In post #18 you wrote: if 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)
You said nothing about after the baby has stabilized. Newborns are routinely placed on the mother’s thorax when they are healthy. Premature infants aren’t. A newborn 28 week fetus is not born healthy. Even in the Great White North.
I notice you give references to post premature birth care. You failed to give any reference to how many abortions are done AT 28 WEEKS !!! Again, you give those phony arguments that wing nuts are famous for and dodge the facts.
The Anti-Choice crowd are great for telling others what they may do with their bodies. Where they fail is by not accepting any responsibility for their actions.
Currently Canada has no abortion law. Maybe you could point to any Canadian statistics of all those 28 week fetuses that were aborted? Geeze, there must be thousands and thousands. With no regulation AND government paid too.
For the record. I am not in favor of abortions. Nor am I in favor of gall bladder surgery, brain tumor removal, or lipoma removal. Yet each one, along with abortion, is a private decision between the patient and their physician. Each one involves the removal of living tissue that with outside assistance, could survive outside the body.
It is illegal to kill yourself in many states. Therefor if you don’t want your corpes to lay around rotting in prison for a few years, I guess you shouldn’t kill your self. It is hard to get a decent lawyer to represent you once your dead you know.
Politicians can fix any problem, just make a law.
So do you say myocardial infarction instead of heart attack?
#46 – MikeN,
Assuming that was directed at me, bad example. Neither is politically charged. Do I say death tax or estate tax would be closer, though neither is a medical term. I’ll try to think of another politically charged term versus a medical term for more examples. In short though, yes, when a non-technical term is politically charged and I am trying to be unbiased, I used the technical term.
#37,
No, I didn’t miss your point. You missed mine.
Defend your argument with facts. And please answer whether Oregon’s murder rate went up after their assisted suicide law.
Well, this thread demonstrates the continuing passion felt by both sides of an issue.
What is the proper outcome of an issue that is hotly contested by at at least two sizeable portions of the community?
No matter what decision is reached, the affected portion of the community is “outraged.”
Seems to me that when such an issue is found, the rational thing to do is to let individuals decide the issue===it is an issue that should not be legislated?
By and large, that is the way most issues are handles (yes, with many exceptions).
Morality. It has been said morality is how you act when no one is looking. It is a private affair. It is what you would do for yourself, for your family, it is what you would advise your best friends to do.
Politics. Forcing your opinion on others under the guise of being moral.
Freedom. Leaving other people alone, having the right to disagree with you.
Sad that the most contentious issues are such because they violate such simple rules for reasonableness and harmony.
If you think your certain morality should be forced on those who disagree, take a moment and think about the government being used against you to do the exact opposite. Now, stop being a hypocrite.
#49 “Seems to me that when such an issue is found, the rational thing to do is to let individuals decide the issue”
Already done. People commit suicide all the time.
It’s EASY. There is NO issue. If a person doesn’t want to live, just ingest a bunch of tranquilizers and, voilà. Dead.
I have no idea about their murder rate. I would guess it went down. I thought the assisted suicide law was thrown out by the supreme court on technical grounds, that the doctors can be prosecuted by the DEA for handing out drugs. My point isn’t that the murder rate will go up, but that more people will legally get away with murder.
#51;
So your whole argument is a logical fallacy?
43 MScott
I didn’t realize the US had won the “first” Iraq war. Did I miss the US patrolling the streets of Baghdad then? You win a war when you control the ground. When you dictate *all* the terms. Infantry knows that too well. By your definition, the war in Afghanistan is won & over.
“Oh, and learn to read. Your post #34 has no relation to Mr. Fusion’s assertion…
I need to learn to read? Since you read so well, quote anything from #34 that refers to babies or foetuses younger than 28 weeks. Anything. In my limited reading capacity, I see only discussion re 28+ weeks.
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. I think that is wrong.
And if you check an unborn child’s DNA, let me understate you will find strong evidence they are not biologically the same as the mother. (A transplant into the mother would be toxic.) Mother & unborn child are one only in the minds of some politicians, lawyers, philosophers, the selfish, the ignorant, and the wishful-thinkers – but not zoologists. Next you will be telling me one conjoined twin always owns the other.
RBG
#53–RGB==can you state exactly what is wrong with the mother have the exclusive right to abort or not their own unbord child? and have you read the Roe v Wade case that lays out the history of this contentious issue?
Finally, whats wrong with if YOU don’t want to abort your fetus then don’t do it but allow others with a different opinion to exercise their right of privacy as well?
I will respectfully anticipate a number of your answers by saying “That was addressed extensively in Roe v Wade.”
Roe v Wade is here, its a very good educational read on the issues.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113
44 Mr. Fusion
In fact, preemies are usually born with a 2 or 3 day “grace period” of relatively better health and they deteriorate somewhat after. None of this precludes kangaroo care shortly after birth, as indicated in my link above, extenuating circumstances aside.
You are fooling yourself if you think just because you can’t see it, an unborn child is not the same being if suddenly removed from the mother & visible. *Such* a developed human can live inside or outside the mother at any time. Both need nutrients and other support to survive.
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.
Think how much paper we could save if the rest of our laws only required such an honor system. Does this “special” case not have power-politics written all over it or what?
Personally, I believe tax evasion should be a matter between businessmen and their accountants. What is that? Show me the last genocide in the US. I still would like to see an anti-genocide law reflecting our core values.
I say again, if there are no 28+ week abortions because the concept is so reviled, put it in the law books (in Canada anyway). There are plenty of other laws reflecting unthinkable scenarios.
RBG
If you support death with dignity – legal, in the states and with safeguards to prevent abuse – then support Washington State’s initiative 1000. It’s based on Oregon’s law, which has been in place for 10 years, and it’s on the ballot for this November.
Help us show everyone that end-of-life choices should be made by individuals, not the government and not the church.
Visit http://www.itsmydecision.org to learn more and make a contribution.
The “slippery slope” argument is a fallacy. It doesn’t make logical sense. Look it up.
We draw lines all the time – why set a speed limit at 30 when you could set it at 25? Why allow handguns but not semi-automatics? Just because we allow or prohibit one thing doesn’t mean that another thing will necessarily be allowed or prohibited later. The slippery slope is a false argument.
Morality nazis? They must be different than the good old regular nazis who would love this idea.
54 bobbo
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. Does Roe v Wade recognize the foetus as a distinct human with it’s own genetics? In the end you can have a law that says we have the power to stop the tides like King Canute, even if we can’t.
Personally, I would be much more impressed with society if it would just come clean and say, “yeah, we’re killing humans, but it’s quick, they don’t know it and it really, really does solve a lot of problems for others.” Instead, we rationalize with an artificial sexual-politic pretense.
RBG
#59–RBG==I will respond directly to your anticipation of my anticipation==science has very little to say about morality. The stuff of science is more often misunderstood and misapplied when some side thinks it supports some part of their position.
If you would EDUCATE yourself, for instance by reading Roe v Wade (but certainly not limited to that reference) you would find the court actually said it had no need to rule on at what stage of development a fetus was a human being–it left that for religion and society. Instead, after extensive historical review, it said the question before it was at what stage of development did certain “rights” attach to the fetus such that the relationship between the mother and society would have different weights attached to the balance.
In other words, arguments about the “humanity” of the fetus are irrelevant.
But I ask again, if you take the position that the government should force women to have babies they don’t want, then what would you say if the government required young unpregnant women to get pregnant and have babies because the government needed cannon fodder or someone to pay off the national debt? What argument would you use?
The compromise position in fact is to leave mothers alone and let them control their own bodies.
#53 – RBG,
I didn’t realize the US had won the “first” Iraq war. Did I miss the US patrolling the streets of Baghdad then? You win a war when you control the ground.
So, I guess you feel that a war is not over until your side wins. This then, for you and you alone, is a continuation of Gulf War I rather than Gulf War II: The Vengeance.
You are one sick puppy.
Gulf War I is over. This is not about Kuwait. This is about oil. Wake up!
“…such that the relationship between the mother and society would have different weights attached to the balance.
It’s a frightening thing when this kind of language determines whether a human lives or dies. Maybe you could translate this for us cornpones.
But all this does illustrate the artificiality and arbitrariness (is that a word?) of law. 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. A place where actual documented, scientific human existence is irrelevant. And that is precisely my point about law.
The beauty is that law usually is forced, through sheer embarrassment if nothing else, to come around to be in line with the real working world.
Let’s see. I see in Alaska, the law says you can’t look at a moose from an aeroplane.
Florida: It is illegal to fart in a public place after 6:00pm on a Thursday.
Fairfield: It is unlawful for “negroes” to be within county boundaries from sundown to sunrise. (Yeah, but the law says…)
And of course, my favorite: in Illinois, a state law requires that a man’s female companion shall call him “master” while out on a date. The law does not apply to married couples. (Nuts.)
Eventually people get wise to the fact that the emperor really has no clothes. And even the highest courts go with whomever pushes the most.
RBG
61 MScott. Yes, big business & oil want as much oil on the market to push down prices as a favor to consumers.
RBG