abortion discussion

[moda0306]

It's fascinating to me how the most "progressive" in our society are also the most barbarous.  I wonder if most defenders of abortion have done any study of the procedure at all?  I doubt that they have.  They fall in line with the progressive beliefs that the cool people hold, rarely questioning.  It makes it easier for me to see how genocides around the world have happened, and continue to happen.  We're not getting more civilized ... quite the opposite.  It's very sad.

I too wonder why the liberal/progressives who proclaim to be looking out for the downtrodden seem to be the ones preying on the weak of society, whether by abortion or making end of life suicide look acceptable to the gullible.  The progressive liberals seem to have encapsulated the worst of Nazism (e.g. eugenics, ethnic, homosexual, and special needs people cleansing),  and expanded the Arian racism that idolized blue-eyed blond perfection to include those who disagree with their ideology; look at the examples of that behavior on this board alone which in many ways represents the smartest and best society has to offer.  Sad and almost unbelievable.  Satan is indeed prowling around like a hungary lion.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

While I can definitely see the anti-abortion side of the argument, when it comes to someone wanting to end their life at the END of life, I'm going to have to completely disagree with you on how you've posed that.

First off, who is gullible?  Many people decide for themselves after seeing people in nursing homes that they don't want to put that burden on themselves & their family.  Many want the ability, but don't legally have it, to set up their end-of-life affairs in a certain way via their healthcare directive while they are still of sound enugh mind to set it up correctly. 

Why should the government be able to tell someone that they can't end their life in some of these old-age/alzheimers circumstances with dignity... I mean, the only reason these people would stay alive is because of the UNNATURAL influence of doctors and caretakers.  If we don't like suicide because it unnaturally ends life, what does Christianity have to say about doing a host of unnatural things to extend life into miserable areas of so-called existence?

[Mountaineer]

It's fascinating to me how the most "progressive" in our society are also the most barbarous.  I wonder if most defenders of abortion have done any study of the procedure at all?  I doubt that they have.  They fall in line with the progressive beliefs that the cool people hold, rarely questioning.  It makes it easier for me to see how genocides around the world have happened, and continue to happen.  We're not getting more civilized ... quite the opposite.  It's very sad.

I too wonder why the liberal/progressives who proclaim to be looking out for the downtrodden seem to be the ones preying on the weak of society, whether by abortion or making end of life suicide look acceptable to the gullible.  The progressive liberals seem to have encapsulated the worst of Nazism (e.g. eugenics, ethnic, homosexual, and special needs people cleansing),  and expanded the Arian racism that idolized blue-eyed blond perfection to include those who disagree with their ideology; look at the examples of that behavior on this board alone which in many ways represents the smartest and best society has to offer.  Sad and almost unbelievable.  Satan is indeed prowling around like a hungary lion.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

While I can definitely see the anti-abortion side of the argument, when it comes to someone wanting to end their life at the END of life, I'm going to have to completely disagree with you on how you've posed that.

First off, who is gullible?  Many people decide for themselves after seeing people in nursing homes that they don't want to put that burden on themselves & their family.  Many want the ability, but don't legally have it, to set up their end-of-life affairs in a certain way via their healthcare directive while they are still of sound enugh mind to set it up correctly. 

Why should the government be able to tell someone that they can't end their life in some of these old-age/alzheimers circumstances with dignity... I mean, the only reason these people would stay alive is because of the UNNATURAL influence of doctors and caretakers.  If we don't like suicide because it unnaturally ends life, what does Christianity have to say about doing a host of unnatural things to extend life into miserable areas of so-called existence?

Moda,

This whole abortion discussion is coupled so tightly to religion, it is really just a subset of the Figuring our Religion thread in my opinion.  Everyone has a religion (i.e. trusting or faith in whatever gives them meaning and security) and probably everyone has an opinion on abortion.  My opinion is consistent with what is said in Scripture about life.

Anyway, Confessional Christianity says God created life and nowhere in his Word is permission for us to to take it upon our selves to end it (other than by the authorities that God has placed over us for our protection and temporal peace and as long as those authorities do not order us to do something contrary to the will of God).  As for dignity, do you think Christ being tortured and subsequently dying on the cross was dignified?  Why should we have it any better than Jesus?  Do you want to be God and make your own rules about what is dignified, and who declares it so, and who should or should not die a dignified death?  God gave us the ability to reason.  It is a gift to be used wisely in accordance with the will of God.  Just because we have the know-how to do something does not make it right.  As for doing a host of unnatural things to extend life .... That is probably adiaphora.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

It's fascinating to me how the most "progressive" in our society are also the most barbarous.  I wonder if most defenders of abortion have done any study of the procedure at all?  I doubt that they have.  They fall in line with the progressive beliefs that the cool people hold, rarely questioning.  It makes it easier for me to see how genocides around the world have happened, and continue to happen.  We're not getting more civilized ... quite the opposite.  It's very sad.

I too wonder why the liberal/progressives who proclaim to be looking out for the downtrodden seem to be the ones preying on the weak of society, whether by abortion or making end of life suicide look acceptable to the gullible.  The progressive liberals seem to have encapsulated the worst of Nazism (e.g. eugenics, ethnic, homosexual, and special needs people cleansing),  and expanded the Arian racism that idolized blue-eyed blond perfection to include those who disagree with their ideology; look at the examples of that behavior on this board alone which in many ways represents the smartest and best society has to offer.  Sad and almost unbelievable.  Satan is indeed prowling around like a hungary lion.

... Mountaineer

I'm with Moda here.

I am not gullible; on the contrary, I would consider myself a skeptic. And I firmly believe in the right to assisted suicide for the terminally ill. It is their life, and their choice how to live it or end it. Plus they are a huge financial and emotional drain on society. Just because YOUR bible says it's a sin doesn't make it one. If you ever have to make that decision for yourself [and I certainly hope you do not] then it will be your choice and no one else's to die without any facilitation.

I agree that it is their choice.  I also believe it will be their consequence.  I never said it was not their choice, only that it is wrong according to God.  Argue with Him, it is his Word, not mine, and if He says it is a sin ....  I am not wiser than God, so I'll go with what He says about the matter - hopefully one day you will too.  On a separate note, have a wonderful Thanksgiving; we have so very much to be thankful for, all that stuff which we can see and the really biggies that we cannot.

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

Is simply taking someone off of life-support and/or a feeding tube "killing them?"  Aren't we screwing with God's will quite a bit by trying to keep everyone alive as long as possible (a little hyperbole there, but not entirely unwarranted)?

Also, we have to remember that these conversations are often coupled with politics.  Do we want GOVERNMENT enforcing a given priority.  With assisted suicide, even if I was convinced that it would send me to hell, most of the debate is whether it should be LEGAL or not in our society.  And since government's power rests pretty squarely on the ability to do what God expressly told us not to do (steal and kill), I can't blame people for wanting to separate their moral beliefs with the enforcement arm of government.

To me, there is a HUGE gray area here.  Our medical/social system intervenes heavily when nature tries to end an old person's life... and then we judge people for wanting a quicker way out (that would have occurred anyway) had they not received said medicine/care.  So much of our lives consist at usurping what nature is trying to do to us (freeze us, starve us, dehydrate us, cook us, eat us, kill us via natural causes, etc).  How do we know those aren't all God's will, and by building a vast shelter infrastructure, a vast food infrastructure, a vast water-delivery infrastructure, air conditioning, weapons and medicine, we aren't spitting in the face of what God wants?

[dualstow]

Oh Desert, I knew I shouldn't have participated in this thread, because people like you attack those who disagree with you with the label "barbarous", even as you show your support for the firing squad in the same breath. I can feel the keep it civil warning coming, but this isn't fair.

Thanks for the thorough reply.  It's interesting that you mention execution right after abortion.

No, it isn't. And I don't appreciate that you're drawing certain conclusions as if I had drawn them myself. I wouldn't have a problem being an abortion doctor or an executioner, and I mentioned them both because they both involve putting something that is not oneself to death. That doesn't mean I equate fetuses with murderers on death row.

 

I think though, with your moral code, I'd expand a bit and kill the elderly.  They're a real drag on society.
...
And what about retarded people?  The severely mentally disabled should be eliminated also. 

Jonathan Swift you're not.

It's not my problem if you don't follow my logic, but I feel the need to remind you that I already said I didn't want to go down the slope of eugenics or sterilizations. Leave it to you to connect me with genocide and the killing of old people despite my explicit statements against that.

...
The severely mentally disabled should be eliminated also. 

Not from the earth, but perhaps from this thread.

Pro-lifers should have the responsibility of taking care of the unborn children of the world. Put your money where your mouth is, stop having kids, and adopt some of those who escaped abortion and are now in foster homes. They could use your help.

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

Is simply taking someone off of life-support and/or a feeding tube "killing them?"  Aren't we screwing with God's will quite a bit by trying to keep everyone alive as long as possible (a little hyperbole there, but not entirely unwarranted)?

Also, we have to remember that these conversations are often coupled with politics.  Do we want GOVERNMENT enforcing a given priority.  With assisted suicide, even if I was convinced that it would send me to hell, most of the debate is whether it should be LEGAL or not in our society.  And since government's power rests pretty squarely on the ability to do what God expressly told us not to do (steal and kill), I can't blame people for wanting to separate their moral beliefs with the enforcement arm of government.

To me, there is a HUGE gray area here.  Our medical/social system intervenes heavily when nature tries to end an old person's life... and then we judge people for wanting a quicker way out (that would have occurred anyway) had they not received said medicine/care.  So much of our lives consist at usurping what nature is trying to do to us (freeze us, starve us, dehydrate us, cook us, eat us, kill us via natural causes, etc).  How do we know those aren't all God's will, and by building a vast shelter infrastructure, a vast food infrastructure, a vast water-delivery infrastructure, air conditioning, weapons and medicine, we aren't spitting in the face of what God wants?

Not to be trite or appear to blow off your questions, but it really does not matter what I "want".  It only matters what God has said and that is "If you believe in the promises of God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), you will be saved because your sins are forgiven because of what Jesus did for you on the cross."  For believers, God's Law, that is His will for how we should live our lives, that is the Law is a guide, and is described in the Scriptures.  For unbelievers, the purpose of God's Law is to curb our evil desires and show us our sin - and drive us to want to repent and hear the Gospel.

As a practical matter, if all this end of life medical/ethical/insurance/cost/social system dilemma troubles you, it can be avoided if you prepare valid and LEGAL, end-of-life instructions and provide them to all the people you interact with, or might interact with, including medical personnel and your family, so all parties know your wishes; let everyone else take care of their own end-of-life decisions.  Whether or not one goes to heaven or hell is not the vocation of a doctor, or government, or me or you.  In other words, I try not to mix the two kingdoms that I've discussed before and I try, much of the time unsuccessfully, to just stick to what God's Word says and let Him do the work He chooses to do.

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

Well if you can find where God informs us of these end-of-life matters in terms of what he thinks, I'd love to read it.  You seem to carry opinions of things and then when they get challenged, often defer to God, who oftentimes, even in Scripture, doesn't make it clear exactly what he wants from us when we get into the nitty-gritty details.

You made an overt claim that people who want certain end of life care are "gullible."  You seem to have very specific feelings on the matter that it would seem you wouldn't have to defer to God, who hasn't really laid out his thoughts on "pulling the plug on Grandpa" in Scripture.  If God hasn't spoken on a subject, even assuming we believe that the Bible is the 100% true Word of God, why defer to him?  We can guess what he would want, but that's about it.  We talk about our opinions all the time here... regarding all sorts of subjects... why when you get into a gray area do you shut down and say "why does it matter what I think... it only matters what God thinks?"  That sounds humble and all, but it's a pretty useless statement unless God has a way (or had a way) of informing us what is right/wrong abot keeping people alive at the end of life.  Someday medical technology might be able to keep human flesh alive FAR beyond its consciousness and health has died.  I would hope that the religious folks out there wouldn't look upon discussions of the moral implications of this to be either something that 1) earns terms like "gullible" and earns accusations of a disrespect for life, or 2) upon further debate, simply gets side stepped by saying "why does my opinion even matter?  Only God's matters." 

Does that mean you have no opinion on the matter?  If not, why call people "gullible?"  If so, then why not share it with us and have it critiqued.

And as a practical matter, I absolutely DON'T, in most states, have the right to simply "arrange my legal affairs accordingly."  I can't choose to end my life eary if I'm struck with cancer in many states.  People simply don't have that option.  In large part, this is due to religious folks that think life is so sacred as a matter of principle, that is in ALL cases morally reprehensible to let it go a little early.

So I really DO care what you think... cuz what YOU think aligns with those who vote yahoos into office that won't allow a change of policy towards end-of life decisions.  And these yahoos, IMO, are "gullible" followers of organized religion... usually the one their parents picked for them... or in some cases (Barack Obama), the one they thought would help their political/economic career.

[Libertarian666]

I would also add, based on looking at the data of who the victims are, abortion is one of the more blatant forms of racism ** that exists in this country today; truly a wolf in sheeps clothing and an example of the emperor has no clothes phenomenona.  The idea of

But the sad fact is they're screwed either way.  They're just less screwed by regulated and legal abortion than getting it done in a back alley by some greedy amateur.  At least right now we don't have to worry about another crime wave pending from all the fatherless, unwanted, minority children!

And as ridiculous as that sounds, if you don't believe that, read Freakonomics.

I haven't read Freakonomics but I'm familiar with that argument, and I think it makes a lot of sense.

[Xan]

But the sad fact is they're screwed either way.  They're just less screwed by regulated and legal abortion than getting it done in a back alley by some greedy amateur.  At least right now we don't have to worry about another crime wave pending from all the fatherless, unwanted, minority children!

And as ridiculous as that sounds, if you don't believe that, read Freakonomics.

I haven't read Freakonomics but I'm familiar with that argument, and I think it makes a lot of sense.

Fatherless and unwanted children might be more likely to commit crimes.  Are you saying that minority children are as well?  And this is your rebuttal to the charge that abortion is racist?

[dualstow]

I didn't ask for an apology, and I don't feel like a victim. I just think you're doing a shitty job of arguing the pro-life point, and at the same time you've got a "holier than thou" attitude. You completely glossed over a key sentence that you will not find very often in pro-choicers' posts, the one about abortion one day being viewed as we now view infanticide. Instead, you went with the usual arrogance of believers. But hey, that's your choice. And I am, after all, pro-choice.

Yes, I stated "people need killin'" and you want to bring back the firing squad. Let's not keep quoting each other out of context, shall we.

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

Well if you can find where God informs us of these end-of-life matters in terms of what he thinks, I'd love to read it.  You seem to carry opinions of things and then when they get challenged, often defer to God, who oftentimes, even in Scripture, doesn't make it clear exactly what he wants from us when we get into the nitty-gritty details.

You made an overt claim that people who want certain end of life care are "gullible."  You seem to have very specific feelings on the matter that it would seem you wouldn't have to defer to God, who hasn't really laid out his thoughts on "pulling the plug on Grandpa" in Scripture.  If God hasn't spoken on a subject, even assuming we believe that the Bible is the 100% true Word of God, why defer to him?  We can guess what he would want, but that's about it.  We talk about our opinions all the time here... regarding all sorts of subjects... why when you get into a gray area do you shut down and say "why does it matter what I think... it only matters what God thinks?"  That sounds humble and all, but it's a pretty useless statement unless God has a way (or had a way) of informing us what is right/wrong abot keeping people alive at the end of life.  Someday medical technology might be able to keep human flesh alive FAR beyond its consciousness and health has died.  I would hope that the religious folks out there wouldn't look upon discussions of the moral implications of this to be either something that 1) earns terms like "gullible" and earns accusations of a disrespect for life, or 2) upon further debate, simply gets side stepped by saying "why does my opinion even matter?  Only God's matters." 

Does that mean you have no opinion on the matter?  If not, why call people "gullible?"  If so, then why not share it with us and have it critiqued.

And as a practical matter, I absolutely DON'T, in most states, have the right to simply "arrange my legal affairs accordingly."  I can't choose to end my life eary if I'm struck with cancer in many states.  People simply don't have that option.  In large part, this is due to religious folks that think life is so sacred as a matter of principle, that is in ALL cases morally reprehensible to let it go a little early.

So I really DO care what you think... cuz what YOU think aligns with those who vote yahoos into office that won't allow a change of policy towards end-of life decisions.  And these yahoos, IMO, are "gullible" followers of organized religion... usually the one their parents picked for them... or in some cases (Barack Obama), the one they thought would help their political/economic career.

Please read the Fifth Commandment material in this link.  Do you agree with it? 

http://bookofconcord.org/lc-3-tencommandments.php

I belive in the separation of church and state.  I believe in following the law of the state unless it conflicts with God's law.  I beliive in changing the state's laws if you don't like them, but follow the law until it is changed.  If you want to end your life, physician assisted, move to Oregon.  Otherwise it is just a matter of convenience you are debating.  So, why is it important what I "think" about end-of-life decisions?  If it is legal, let the person do it, just like they are free to do all sorts of sinful things that are legal - you and I do them most every moment of every day.  Or, let them blow their brains out with a gun, or slit their wrists with a knife.  Those chicken hearted cowards just don't want to experience pain for their decisions and take the easy way out by having someone else do them in.  Man up, I say; do it yourself.  Why worry about it being legal, what are they going to do?  Kill you because you broke a borked law?  Why get hung up on killing yourself if you don't believe in God or following His desires?  I really hate to break the news to you, but people are sinful from conception forward and do sinful, evil things; that is just the way it is.  You are not going to eliminate evil from the world with laws written by man or by telling me or anyone else how to vote, even if you are "king for a day" and revise every last rule, regulation, or law to fit your personal worldview.  All my opinion of course, maybe I'm wrong. 

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

You made an overt claim that people who want certain end of life care are "gullible." 

Yes, assuming your "certain end of life care" statement is choosing to end life by unnatural means; I stand by my statement they are gullible.  They are gullible to the lies of Satan, as well as a secular culture that makes it "all about me" and whatever "I" think is right is OK.  This will likely sound very strange to you, but I think the person who makes that choice is probably an unbeliver that continues to value himself above all others (should we call that end-of-life narcissism?) - for example, he is denying his friends and family the opportunity love and cherish final moments and to care for him, especially if they are in a traditional "until death do us part" loving, caring, marriage and not one of those "until I tire of you" marriages.

... Mountaineer

[dualstow]

Let's put the shittiness and grittiness and isolate one point that I want to ask you about:

I DO think said doctor is a murderer, but I myself am responsible, I think, for at least one abortion.

You wrote something to that effect earlier, but what does that mean? (Or, are the details in earlier pages?)
You got someone pregnant in university and she quietly aborted without revealing that you are the father, but you suspect as much?
You planned to marry a pregnant woman but things went sour and you went your separate ways?
If it's something like that, you would onlly partially responsible, if at all.
I mean, I think both progenitors should play a role where possible, but ultimately, according to man's law anyway, it usually comes down to the woman's right to choose, right?

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,
..... what is right/wrong abot keeping people alive at the end of life.  ......

I do not see this any differently, from a Scripture or personal perspective, than choosing to prolong ones life by taking antibotics when one has an otherwise fatal infection.  Keeping someone alive via technology that God gave us the ability to invent is completely different than choosing to end one's life.  Life is a precious gift from God even more so than the gift of reason that enabled us to invent the technology to prolong life.  Ditto the gift of a Savior, marriage, children, money, home, and parents, everything.  Why squander any of it?  When it is time for life to end, that is when the weight of sin has ground us down, back into dust, our life ends, in God's time of choosing.  "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."  Romans 6:23.  I know how much you value Scripture to address your questions. 

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

And in case you misunderstood my firing squad comment:  I'm not a huge fan of the death penalty.  I often lean dangerously left in the eyes of my Christian buddies (although I've recently discovered a whole band of Christians who aren't staunch Republicans).  I think the death penalty comes with huge risks, since it's been shown that the innocent have been executed in this country.  A small percentage perhaps, but still possible.  Anyway, I made comment regarding the firing squad because I think our search for a more humane death penalty has probably resulted in the opposite, with stories of botched electric chair procedures, and botched lethal injections.  It seems that we've ended up in a worse place that when firing squads were used. 

I'm with Desert on this one.  Does the term "humane death" strike anyone else as an oxymoron - just another attempt to PCize all of us to what is really happening or anesthesize the public so they don't really think about it too much?  Dead is dead; just call a thing what it is.  It strikes me the use of the term "humane death" by our culture is similar to one who walks up to the casket at a funeral service and makes mundane comments like "don't they look nice?", or "she looks so peaceful" .... bull crap, they are DEAD and death is not pretty; it is a stinking ugly thing if you have ever been around what happens at death re. losing control of body functions etc., especially if the body is not found for a few days.  Maybe that is why we have gone to such lengths to avoid staring death in the face by use of funeral homes, nursing homes, hospitals, hospices and the like - shield us from death, hide it, don't talk about it, so we don't ask too many questions about what happens to us after death and why we have to die - we might inadvertently stumble into the truth.  I sometimes think we would all be better off if we had to clean up grandpa ourselves, before digging the grave in the back yard ourselves, and burying him ourselves - we would have to stare reality in the face.  But, we don't want to experience uncomfortable situations, life is so much easier and pleasant when we are temporarily "happy"; we do want to live in the moment and not think of what the future holds for every one of us, don't we?  From a Christian point of view, dead is not the way God intended his creatures to be and we know there is hope, there is light, there is peace and joy forever - regardless of the dark reality around us that tries mightly to suck us in, just like a black hole.

... Mountaineer

[dualstow]

Back on the general topic of death: I think we're all capable of Nazi-like actions.  I used to watch the documentaries and think about how twisted and horrible those Germans were.  A friend of mine from the past (a bit of a bleeding heart) would argue that Americans were just as bad in their treatment of the natives on this continent. 
...
Left and Right, black and white, we're all capable of that sort of behavior.  And we're not growing out of it, as a human race.  We're not getting better, improving, or becoming more civilized.  At the end of the day, humans are sinful and they like to kill each other. 

I know that sounds depressing and defeatist, and I don't mean it that way.
...

I can see some similarities. Both involved genocide. Both involved regarding the target of that genocide as subhuman, sometimes to facilitate the genocide and sometimes out of genuine feeling (depends on the individual). And I have some sympathy with pro-lifers who point out that those in favor of abortion define a fetus as less than human so that abortion is not murder.

I think of what whites did in the Americas as conquering and theft, though it was a holocaust, no doubt. What stands out for me about the Nazis is that in addition to conquering, starving and slaughtering their Slavic neighbors, they turned on their own countrymen. Jews, Roma, etc. So many Jews fought so hard for Germany in WWI (and never mind all the history that came before the world wars). What if everyone named John Smith, even scientists and those who fought for the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan, was murdered along with his children because some years later a group arose decided that they didn't like the John Smiths of the world. Crazy.

I would argue that abortion is "equal opportunity killing" but the topic has been raised that abortion, like incarceration, is racially biased. I think that's something I need to explore further.

[Xan]

There's also sex-selection bias in abortion.  Britain has had to make that specifically illegal.  But doesn't that undercut the entire pro-abort argument?  If it's the mother's choice, and her absolute right to eject anybody from her body that she doesn't want there, then there can be no justification for banning sex-selective abortion.

[Pointedstick]

I think the most humane method of execution would probably be waiting until the to-be-executed was asleep, and then crushing him very quickly with a gigantic multi-ton hydraulic press. It'd be quick, painless, and without any apprehension, either, since he'd already be asleep. Of course this would probably look pretty gross. It seems to me that the more we try to visually sanitize the process of killing, the more brutal to the victim we actually make the process (e.g. electric chair, gas chamber, recent revelations about lethal injection).  Hanging and firing squad seem orders of magnitude more humane than our most recent methods.

[moda0306]

I think the most humane method of execution would probably be waiting until the to-be-executed was asleep, and then crushing him very quickly with a gigantic multi-ton hydraulic press. It'd be quick, painless, and without any apprehension, either, since he'd already be asleep. Of course this would probably look pretty gross. It seems to me that the more we try to visually sanitize the process of killing, the more brutal to the victim we actually make the process (e.g. electric chair, gas chamber, recent revelations about lethal injection).  Hanging and firing squad seem orders of magnitude more humane than our most recent methods.

I laughed my ass off after the bolded portion.  I don't know why.  It just reads funny as hell for such a heated discussion.

[Mountaineer]

Does the term "humane death" strike anyone else as an oxymoron?

Not really. Does euthanasia of a terminal dog, cat or horse in pain strike you as inhumane? Aren't they God's creatures? Who are we as humans to play God and decide for our loving pet when enough is enough? Why is it any different for humans?

Hmmmm.  Interesting point.  It made me think for a few minutes.  Then I realized, once again, why I'm so thankful I am a Christian and thankful for the wisdom God put forth in His Holy Book to guide us in such sticky matters. 

From Genesis, Chapter 1:
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”?
27 So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them.
28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”?

From Genesis Chapter 4:
4 and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering,

And from Genesis Chapter 9:
3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

This is why it is acceptable to harvest plants to eat and kill animals.  We are to exercise good stewardship over God's creation.  God made man as the pinacle of His creation for a reason.  Using your God given reason to decide when to kill animals is acceptable, killing people without the proper authority is very clearly specified as a very big no-no.  Very short answer and there is some additional Scripture on the topic, but I think this is sufficient.

... Mountaineer

[dualstow]

I think the most humane method of execution would probably be waiting until the to-be-executed was asleep, and then crushing him very quickly with a gigantic multi-ton hydraulic press.

But there would inevitably be a malfunction, and the condemned would be slowly squeezed to death. Incidentally, a classmate once asked me what I thought would be the worst way to die and I said being squeezed to death, like by an anaconda. (He had guessed I'd say death by oven because I was Jewish, to which I replied, 'I don't think you'd like it either.  )

[dualstow]

Does the term "humane death" strike anyone else as an oxymoron?

Not really. Does euthanasia of a terminal dog, cat or horse in pain strike you as inhumane? Aren't they God's creatures? Who are we as humans to play God and decide for our loving pet when enough is enough? Why is it any different for humans?

+1 There is humane treatment and inhumane treatment. And, there is humane execution, (morphine overdose), and inhumane (tearing someone's entrails out slowly).

[Mountaineer]

Does the term "humane death" strike anyone else as an oxymoron?

Not really. Does euthanasia of a terminal dog, cat or horse in pain strike you as inhumane? Aren't they God's creatures? Who are we as humans to play God and decide for our loving pet when enough is enough? Why is it any different for humans?

+1 There is humane treatment and inhumane treatment. And, there is humane execution, (morphine overdose), and inhumane (tearing someone's entrails out slowly).

Hey guys, we are getting off track of what I meant.  I just meant that it seems like an oxymoron to talk about various "humane" methods of putting one to death (firing squad, hanging, electric chair, lethal injection, guillitine, all have been used by civilized societies and all have their issues) and losing track of the idea that death is final to the one being killed.  I was not intending to get into the dark side of humanity or torture; I did point out that we are stewards of God's creation, that to me implies we do not go to the dark side or torture in our killing, whether it be animals or authorized killing by government.  It just struck me that we are more worried more about how the executioners and public will "feel" and try to justify their actions and methods rather than focus on the actual act of killing that is being committed. 

... Mountaineer 

[dualstow]

I respectfully disagree, Mountaineer. (You and I are in the U.S., and with respect to other forum members, that's what I'm writing about when I say) we are in a secular state, not a theocracy, and some states have the deathy penalty. Once it is a forgone conclusion that there are going to be executions, I am glad that someone is trying to perform them humanely, all the horrible past mistakes notwithstanding.

[Mountaineer]

I respectfully disagree, Mountaineer. (You and I are in the U.S., and with respect to other forum members, that's what I'm writing about when I say) we are in a secular state, not a theocracy, and some states have the deathy penalty. Once it is a forgone conclusion that there are going to be executions, I am glad that someone is trying to perform them humanely, all the horrible past mistakes notwithstanding.

On one level I agree with you and if killing must be done, I think it should not be torture.  On another level, I am more focused on the idea that we should not kill anyone, regardless of method, but I realize that is idealistic in our secular state of the USA.  On a third level, I really wonder if it is more humane to kill than to lock them up and throw away the key - that way, there would always be time for the convicted to repent and not lose his life eternally.  I realize that costs society more than the killing, but then that drives me to think that we are more interested, as a society, in saving those bucks for our own other purposes ... selfish, I don't know for sure but I'm tending toward killing being somehow darkly more for the benefit of those doing the killing rather than being altruistic and caring for the one being killed.  Tough subject.  I still am pondering that oxymoron thing though.

... Mountaineer