Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Non-Killing Society: abortion & euthanasia (continued)

It is really challenging to say I should agree with euthanasia or disagree with it. First of all, killing life and violence or torture is something different. I & Tod spent hours about this after class yesterday. Animal rights advocacy might agree to some degrees of killing animals for food or for other reasons; but animal rights group might disagree the act that kill animals violently or severely tortured.

I don't know for those who are painful by their own sick should be called torture or not; and ending life with dignity from such gruesome illness would be dignified or not? I don't know the perception of suicide-bombers, do they think they end their life with dignity or not? Killing definitely refers to the end other's life as well as end our own life intentionally. Consciously, end other's life and end our own life (or permit someone to end our own life) might have different degrees of violence and consequences; but it is still called killing. So nonkilling society should cover all issues encouraging killing activities such as death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, homicide, suicide, democide, or the uses of violent language promoting killing or the act of killing etc. And I would prefer to call "conscious society" rather than extreme "nonkilling society". Nonkilling society is still constitute the sense of "killing" in itself.


- Hide quoted text -
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Josh Pryor <@gmail.com> wrote:
I believe in euthanasia, however, I see how it can be abused, hence I am also in favor of 'living wills,' ensuring the soon to be deceased has a little bit of control over his life. Alas, I am also aware how living wills can be abused, so I would hope in some way the wills are written at a time when the soon to be deceased is cogent enough to sanely make their final decisions.

Second, as far as abortion is concerned, I think its a wonderful thing, if anything by ensuring women have the ability to choose when the right time of birth is. I see no problems in killing human cells, especially prior to the quickening (first baby movements) to me its a bunch of syrup until its actually breathing/living/kicking, etc. Human history generally shows agreement with this perspective, and only recently, more in america than in europe, is this issue being fought with such vehemence. this is likely due to the fact that abortion was legally sanctioned through courts, rather than through federal law, creating bucks of poo to deal with. Europeans have had abortion laws on the books for quite some time now, and most would argue that the choice for abortion is as important for women as the right to vote (or at least in the same ballpark). Without the right to abortion, women can literally be slaves to the household, as men continue to knock them up and remove their ability to seek a life elsewhere. Sadly, it's that simple.

Regarding abortion and euthenasia for a nonkilling society, I think neither present any real problems. Ultimately, the nonkilling society is, in my view, concerned with government enforced/sanctioned killings and/or murders on a domestic level that remove the lives of others. Euthenasia is basically a nice form of suicide, when done correctly (even Dr. Kevorkian would usually have the patient press the button, if able, to kill themselves, though correct me if I'm wrong) and abortions are the ability of a women to remove cells from their own body, not killing people externally from their body. Hence, I see the nonkilling society as focusing on humans killing other humans, either through governments, some form of individual networks/corporations, or some form of personal attack.

But hey, I've been around my family from the mainland all day today, so I guess I'm ready to kill anyone.


On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Scott Alan Kroeker <@hawaii.edu> wrote:
I too am in favor of euthanasia but see the philosophical conundrum it might present when considering the possibility of a non-killing society. The choice to end one's own life, however, is much different than the choice to end someone elses. Abortion too is a challenge for me to reconcile -- I believe in the free choice of the woman but at the same time am abhored the number of abortions that do take place. I had a rather heated discussion with a Catholic acquaintance some time ago who was talking about how "Life" was a critical issue in the upcoming election for her. It was curious to me that when she described the two sides of the debate she framed it as pro-life and pro-abortion (which I'm sure is probably how the propogandists on the pro-life side of the issue talk about it). I pointed out that it is perfectly logical to be both pro-choice (on a societal basis) and anti-abortion (on the personal level) which was hard for her to understand or accept. Perhaps as Paige sugg
ests that the initial impetus for a non-killing society must be an individual commitment to not kill is enough to bridge this gap on abortion. That is, if individuals feel strongly enough that killing is not an option (and they consider abortion killing) they will be responsible enough in their sexual behavior to make it highly unlikely they will have to make the decision.

Addressing Igor's concern about officially sanctioned government sponsored killing being a very small percentage of all killing (at least within our borders I would argue). I think that symbolic acts such as eliminating the death penalty, or unilaterally disarming (especially nuclear weapons), or having police operate without guns (such as in Britain) are incredibly important acts that demonstrate the underlying values of a society. If our leaders are so eager to employ language and actions that lead to killing or imply the moral need to kill (Bushes anti-terrorist rhetoric is a prime example) make it much easier for individuals within a society to make the same arguments at a personal level. That is, if Osama bin Laden can be legitimately "smoked out of his hole, hunted down and killed" because he inflicted pain on the country, then anyone who causes me pain in my personal life (like that bastard who cut me off in traffic or my wife who demeans me in public) can by the same
logic be harmed. If our leaders (at all levels) used different rhetoric and eliminated violent language I think that same language seeps into our subconsious. I also think we privately crave to be talked to in that way and moved away from violence. I can't help but think that some of Obama's appeal this election cycle is that his language is softer and more concilatory than Clinton--and certainly more so than Bush.

Furthermore, and I'll stop soon, if you look at society as merely an extension of individuals and families perhaps you can make analogies about parent/child relationships. Many many families are now giving up on corporal punishment and seemingly getting children to behave and grow up happy and healthy without any violence being inflicted upon them. Can this be extrapolated to society as a whole?


No comments: