Shocking online video sparks anger, death threats
 

Shocking online video of girl throwing live puppies into river sparks anger, death threats

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/worl...eath_thre.html

It's absolutely horrible that someone would do this -- to destroy innocent life without necessity.

As Pope John Paul II termed it, the "Culture of Death" continues unabated.

You mean..like the Death Penalty?

sorry Joey..couldn't resist:D

where does innocent apply with your post?

No problem...just read a little more carefully next time.

Since we are talking about innocent life, I would say abortion is the closer parallel.

The death penalty as practiced in the United States is subject to due process of law -- anything else would be tyrannical. Every opportunity must be used to make truly sure that the sentence applies, and with the slightest doubt the death penalty must be stayed.

Abortion on the other hand has no due process, and is responsible for at least 40 million deaths since 1973. How many death sentences have been carried out since 1973?

the irony of liberals. Death Penalty is the worst thing ever.. but go ahead and suck your child out with a hoover and throw it away in the trash whenever you please!

not that we need an additional 40 million kids out there.. but its the parents in most cases who should have been aborted.

To end something, that has no developed nervous system, is not the same as killing a puppy, or a person. If something has a brain, and can feel pain, then there's some case to be made. Otherwise, these are not comparable. If it were, then you could just go eat 2 raw eggs, n' stop eating scrambled eggs.

but something that is already in process of developing a nervous system, and will have that system in only a short time.. is okay to kill... but killing someone who's committed a 1st degree murder felony is not okay?

Doesnt one deserve it more than the other? Why is it okay for one and not the other? the nervous system is right around the corner.. and the fetus has a much more promising future than a murderer on death row.

I'm just curious. I'm pro death penalty and pro abortion. While I find it disgusting to have abortions as persistent means of birth control instead of taking a damn pill, those arent the type of people we need raising kids in this country anyway. Population control.

That's terrible. People like that have serious mental issues and should be locked up.

It's more fundamental than that. To point to the presence or absence of one organ or structure is not sufficient.

If you found the DNA of a fertilized zygote at a crime scene, you'd assume that there was a unique person there, distinct from the mother and father. And you'd be correct.

How would they find that? It'd probably still be in the mother's Fallopian Tube. Whatever it is, it can't develop a brain without a woman. To call something a person it should be able to feel and/or respond to stimuli. A zygote can't survive in this world the way a person can. People have brains. When their brains don't work, they usually call it being a vegetable. You can implant many organs from another person, but not the brain. Each day, in this country, people have machines turned off, and people die. They die because their brain no longer works. Most of us do not consider that to be the person we knew. People burn it. People bury it in dirt. It once had life, but it no longer does. Same as something (without a developed brain) growing in a woman. She is the artificial machine keeping something growing until it's actually alive (with a functioning brain.) You're alive when you can feel n' respond to stimuli. Need a brain for that. If a fetus can feel stimuli, then I would agree that aborting it is murder.

I obviously wasn't referring to an actual crime scene procedure...I was using it as an example to say that when we have a unique DNA sequence, we have one (or more in the case of twins, triplets, etc) new life present. It should be "hands off" at that point -- which leads to a philosophical position against abortion.

You're obviously correct that the brain is crucial to life experience and certainly that the end of the brain translates to the end of earthly life. After that point, the argument will depend on one's faith, or lack of it, and I'll forego that and keep this to a scientific discussion. But as to how life begins, we also know that life does not switch on, then off, then on again. So I would argue that since the DNA is unique at conception, and since growth begins immediately (zygote to blastocyst to embryo to fetus...) that life - not yet consciousness or sentience - begins at conception. It is more humane to kill before consciousness or sentience, but it is no more ethical. It is still murder.

I also agree with you about the disposition of the body of the deceased. Jumping outside of science for a second, I tend to think of the body as "a spacesuit for the soul." We need it to experience everything here on earth, from the laws of physics to our interaction with others, but, assuming there is an afterlife which I can never hope to comprehend in my finite existence, it is not needed for the next life.