Topic: Victory for women's rights: Mother wins right to end disabled child's life - page 2. (Read 3944 times)

So? This still doesn't justify executions... this is a very poor argument.

But there are some criminals that can never be reformed

Fair enough.

I didn't say all religious people want to pass laws to restrict things they don't support. Though I did say that a large part of the republican base is made up of people like this. If you need evidence, see all the anti-gay marriage laws written in the southern "republican" states that the courts are finally overturning as unconstitutional. It's easiest to see it with gay marriage, so I won't bother with less easily-identifiable examples.

I don't know about that. I would have to see some facts supporting that claim. Otherwise it's just speculation. I won't disagree that a large part of Republicans are religious, but I just don't believe that it is safe to generalize that all religious people want laws passed to restrict things they don't support. And even if that were true, how is it any different than the Atheist groups who are trying to get laws passed to restrict things they don't like, such as having "In God We Trust" removed from everything and denying children the right/priviledge to say prayers in school. There are hypocracies on all sides.

What the hell does this have to do with anything? You know they don't execute people for pedophilia right?

I agree with you on the term being crude and based on biased generalizations. But you can't deny that a large part of the republican party's support comes from religious folks who DO want to see laws passed to restrict behaviors they don't agree with. To pretend otherwise isn't being honest. While the term may be objectionable, I think this is the sentiment using that term was meant to evoke; it was just done in the shortest hand possible.

You keep referencing "religious people" in your posts. How exactly is it religious people having their way? What country do you live in? Afganistan? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Those are a few countries that come to mind whose laws are dictated by religion (Islam). Here in the U.S. we have this thing called elections. Religious people and non-religious people alike are allowed to vote and place the people in the positions that actually are the ones who decide who gets executed and for what. They're called judges.

Using the phrase "religious people..." is a crude and biased generalization at best. I'm a religious person, and I hold no desire at all to see laws passed that would require people to be executed for their sexual preference. I could care less if someone is gay. It's not my place to judge.

Back on topic. I can understand the parents wanting to end their child's suffering. I have two problems here though. First, the title of the post says "Victory for women's rights." What does this have to do with women's rights? From reading the article is seems that the mother AND father both made the decision.
Second, could they not have found a more humane way to carry out the deed? I mean, removing the feeding and watering tubes and allowing someone in a coma to die is one thing. But the child was conscious and aware of what was going on. So having her die by dehydration must not have been a pleasant experience at all, I would imagine.

Welcome to my world lol but this is generally what I'm on about, people are so hateful and paranoid they're going to start prosecuting and killing people for a thought process.

Wow, yeah, that's pretty sad stuff. But if both parties consent and are underage, they should not be persecuted

I'm comparing the mentality people have towards both, they consider it 'abnormal' therefore the people exhibiting these 'symptoms' have to be exterminated which is basically what you're advocating. Nevermind the fact there have been cases and I can go find news articles for you on this where people have been charged for paedophilia for having sex with 17 year olds and there are even cases where you have two 15 year olds or so having sex at the same age.

So yeah, I have a fucking problem with anyone who thinks killing criminals who have given themselves up or captured is a good idea.

http://www.gpb.org/news/2010/09/20/woman-no-longer-a-sex-offender#

^ Yeah, executing these 'paedophiles' will be a really great idea won't it?

Are you comparing homosexuality to pedophilia?

What kind of a question is that in the first place? Any criminal can be reformed, it's just a question of how much effort people are willing to put in, but frankly if religious people have their way executing for people for their sexual preferences to me is one step closer to executing people for homosexuality and then any other fetish people have a problem with will be next.

No one does, but please answer my question

Do you believe in the absolute accuracy of the justice system? Because I sure fucking don't.

Do you believe pedophiles can be reformed?

I agree with Cube here. I am anti-death penalty, pro-lethal force in self defense, and have mixed feelings on abortion for various reasons beyond the child or the mothers rights, and under certain circumstances, like this one, I would have to say I am pro-euthanasia. Life should be protected, but its easy to fight for the right to life when someone else has to suffer for that to happen. I find this is a common theme with lots of so called progressive moments. They will fight tooth and nail to make sure SOMEONE ELSE "does the right thing" at no expense to themselves personally other than the effort of the condemnations hurled from the supposed moral high ground.

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks like this, religious people like to act as if people who are pro-choice are all heartless child killers but lets think about it for a second because if I were a child and had cognitive brain function and could see what was going on out in the real world I'd probably strangle myself to death with my own umbilical cord and yeah, it's hard not to see the religious pro-life lot as heartless when they think a terminally ill person who wants to die should be kept alive despite having no cure for them and then there's rape because of course it's all the woman's fault for getting raped in the first place right?

We had this recent thing in the UK where a terminally ill guy was trying to get it to be legal for him to die on his own and he was crying when the government said no. It amazes me how arrogant religious people can be when dictating how other people should live, I also consider it a form of torture to keep someone who's in a lot of pain artificially alive through medicine because that's exactly what's happening, it's all artificial, they aren't living on their own.

Oh and don't fucking pretend it isn't you guys subverting the law that's doing this, we all know exactly what you're up to.

What most of us here are implying is that if one cannot speak up for their rights, they must be terminated

Think of how proud the Fuhrer would be!

If I was a child in this situation I would want my parents to let me die quickly and as painlessly as possible as an infant.

You seem to to be confusing withdrawing of unnatural and invasive medical therapies with execution.  This child is not having her life ended. The mother is refusing further invasive and unnatural medical care.


If the child is unable to say
"I am in pain please stop torturing me and let me die"
We should just keep the torture going forever huh?
Seems a bit harsh to me.

Personally I would rather rely on the parents who are the ones most likely to love and care for the child and choose what is in the best interest of the child.