Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Those were the 4 cases of children that they euthanized, yes.
But the story states that the panel is also to consider cases of "...the severely mentally retarded"

Tell me this doesn't open a Pandora's Box.

Read the story again.

"In August, the main Dutch doctors' association KNMG urged the Health Ministry to create an independent board to review euthanasia cases for terminally ill people "with no free will," including children, the severely mentally retarded, and people left in an irreversible coma after an accident."


In other words, they are proposing a means to determine if people facing a terminal illness who do not have the "free will" or mental capacity to make the decision should be euthanized. No one is proposing euthanizing "the severely mentally retarded" because they are severly mentally retarded, anymore than they are proposing euthanizing "children" because they are children.

The four examples they cite give an indication of the kinds of diseases being considered as giving rise to such a review.

[ilikenewsocks]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Riddle me this.

Someone burns a cross on Blackacre to purportedly scare the local black family.

Unbeknownst to the arsonist, said family moved out 2 weeks ago and some Irish family - call them the McGills - bought the house.

Person gets caught.

How do you charge him?

McGill again?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Those were the 4 cases of children that they euthanized, yes.
But the story states that the panel is also to consider cases of "...the severely mentally retarded"

Tell me this doesn't open a Pandora's Box.

Depends on the situation. I can and have made all sorts of advance directives in case something happens, and I cannot articulate that I DO NOT WANT TO BE KEPT IN A PERSISTENT VEGITIATIVE STATE. (Yelling to emphasize the point in case some court starts polling internet discussion groups about whether or not I'd made my intentions known.)

If a severely mentally retarted person ends up in a Cruzan type situation (unfortunately recussitated after 8 minutes of brain death, leading to irreversable coma, years of litigation and very expensive health care), I could see starting a dialogue with family and health care providers about whether or not to pull the plug despite the fact that the patient a) never articulated his or her feelings on the subject one way or another, and b) never had the capacity to articulate his or her feelings on the subject even if presented with the question.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Riddle me this.

Someone burns a cross on Blackacre to purportedly scare the local black family.

Unbeknownst to the arsonist, said family moved out 2 weeks ago and some Irish family - call them the McGills - bought the house.

Person gets caught.

How do you charge him?

What does the statute provide?

If it's specific intent, then mistake is a defense. I'd charge them with illegal burning.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I thought his point (and what RT was getting at) was: if women aren't protected by hate-crime laws, despite the fact that women historically have been terribly abused and discriminated against and presently are criminally preyed upon frequently due to their status as women, then it becomes obvious that hate-crime laws are written, not to protect those segments of the population that are victimized and discriminated against because of their status, but instead to protect only certain favored groups that are selected based on some criteria other than the fact that they are routinely (and/or historically) targeted because of their membership in the group.

Or: including women highlights the inherent problems with hate-crime laws, but excluding them eviscerates the supposed justification for having the laws at all.

I recognize the issue you are talking about. But the statutes have drawn a distinction, I believe, for a slightly different reason -- and not because blacks and gays are "favored groups" as compared to women. While there are many crimes that are committed against women either because they are women (rape), or because women are generally more vulnerable (domestic violence), the group of "women" occupies a different place than groups like "blacks", "Jews", "gays." Put differently, there is not the same history of crimes that are directed against women with the intent of striking fear into all women in a given community. There is some history of it, but there's a basis for the conclusion that it's not the same.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Put differently, there is not the same history of crimes that are directed against women with the intent of striking fear into all women in a given community.

You are totally, totally joking, right?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Depends on the situation. I can and have made all sorts of advance directives in case something happens, and I cannot articulate that I DO NOT WANT TO BE KEPT IN A PERSISTENT VEGITIATIVE STATE. (Yelling to emphasize the point in case some court starts polling internet discussion groups about whether or not I'd made my intentions known.)

You mean you're not confident that the "Lawtalkers.com" tattoo on your unmentionables won't tip them off on where to look?

Me and Shifter thought it would play pretty well, though I have to question Shifter's decision to have it put on his ass. Still, at least it's more sensical than Hank's. Hank, who is "Ruby?"

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Put differently, there is not the same history of crimes that are directed against women with the intent of striking fear into all women in a given community. There is some history of it, but there's a basis for the conclusion that it's not the same.

You mean historically they weren't treated in a way we (society) now realized was wrong. But the fact is the rapists have always treated them wrong. You're a bright guy, but the above is one of those things people post because they don't want to give up a point- and then realize a few days later they were wrong.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Still, at least it's more sensical than Hank's. Hank, who is "Ruby?"

That's what Slave and I call your mom when you're in hearing distance.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
You are totally, totally joking, right?

No, I'm not.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
That would be a discussion worth having. Turning it into a "Europeans are bad" slam is one way to avoid having it.

My understanding of the article, though, was that it was talking about babies born with terminal illnesses -- i.e., those with a few minutes, hours, maybe days to live. Going from killing a baby who will die after a few (excrutiangly painful) hours (or just not treating that baby and letting him or her suffer and die) to "selective breeding" or "kill everyone with a birth defect" is an enormous leap. And one that neither Europe nor America has made despite apparently engaging in the former practice for many years now.

If an elderly person wanted to be euthanized rather than live through a few months of terminal bone cancer, I wouldn't stop him.

Sure. And you thought they were going to stop with putting flouride in the water. Now look what they've done.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
That's what Slave and I call your mom when you're in hearing distance.

Ah. Then I should tell you that the heart tattoo on the chest is a sweet gesture, however misguided.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Sure. And you thought they were going to stop with putting flouride in the water. Now look what they've done.

Quick question: Have you said "I DO NOT WANT TO BE KEPT IN A PERSISTENT VEGITIATIVE STATE" within hearing distance of anyone from whom we can take a statement?

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
No, I'm not.

Wow. I just have no response to that. Except that apparently Hank is right, and "society" still doesn't recognize the treatment of women as subject beings with lesser personal, economic and political protection under the law as wrong.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You mean historically they weren't treated in a way we (society) now realized was wrong. But the fact is the rapists have always treated them wrong. You're a bright guy, but the above is one of those things people post because they don't want to give up a point- and then realize a few days later they were wrong.

It's obvious that rapists have always treated women wrong, but that utterly misses the point.

Given that rape is, by definition, something that can only involve a female victim, it's pretty strange to say that it should also be charged as a hate crime because it's a crime against a woman.

The fundamental issue in hate crime legislation is whether a crime is directed at an individual or at a group. Rape can be a hate crime when it's directed at terrorizing a group -- or even genocide, as with the rape of Bosnian Muslims. But is a man who commits a date rape motivated by his bias towards all women? It seems that virtually all legislatures who have made a decision on this have taken the view that, no, he is not.