Quote (Skinned @ 23 Sep 2014 14:55)
You haven't been following current events. Many of the pharma companies that state's bought their execution materials have stopped contracts providing them with chemicals because they don't want to be implicated in the systematic murder of captive people.
Two recent incidents:
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/8/25/oklahoma-executionaclu.html <---They even tried to cover it up
http://www.theverge.com/2014/7/23/5931739/botched-lethal-injection-takes-nearly-two-hours-to-kill-arizona-inmate <--Man took two hours to die
I know that my great swing state of Ohio is experimenting.
Also, you probably don't work in palliative care, so I don't hold it against you you not knowing that pain from death can be silenced by no drug. That would make hospice care much easier in practice. These people are going through convulsions that would break bones if they weren't strapped to a chair or table.
And lethal injection has been implemented because it is prettier than hanging and more humane than electrocution. I think that kidnapping somebody, locking them in a cage for a determined and specified amount of time which they know they will be executed, and then executing them how many years later, is punishment enough for any crime. No person would actually do that to anybody, it takes a state to do that. Even the worse offenders don't put others through that measure of mental, physical, spiritual, and emotional torment, and they definitely don't call it justice.
What is worse is we know for a fact we get it wrong and do this horrible thing to innocent people.
I agree entirely. You're right - I haven't been keeping up with current news regarding executions because I simply don't believe they are necessary in this day and age and in civilised and developed countries. The specifics don't bother me too much, just the simple act of killing a human being is enough that I am against it.
I have actually worked in a hospice but our patients were never given general anaesthetics. Just opiates, analgesics and some anti-depressants for neuralgia afaik. I wasn't the one administering them.
Quote (andysundala @ 23 Sep 2014 15:15)
my American side is shouting in agreement with your statement. yes, working women, especially single mothers, and in fact all daughters, deserve an equal share of inheritance left by her parents.
at the risk of sounding backwards, i would argue that women (i'm sorry, feminists and feminism supporters) play a specific role in her family which is the wife. her most significant role is the wife and supporter of household affairs. this is why Islam prohibits women from entering the army and waging war against others. the assumption is that husbands work, make money, provide for the family. as for unemployed husbands, i have no answer to that. as for unemployed widows or unmarried women, i have no answer.
my counter argument would be that the Qur'an in no way prohibits her siblings (brothers) from donating a fraction of their inheritance to a sister in need. in fact, this is one of the best things a person can do. give charity. those who receive charity first are family.
in a short video of Dr. Zakir Naik, he says that in only certain situations are two women's testimony considered equal to one man's. the Qur'an only states 5 instances where this is applicable.
for example, undergoing a debt. one must produce two male witnesses to see the transaction. if you cannot find two males, one male and two females are sufficient. the reasoning behind this is that males, as the breadwinner of the household, are more capable of understanding financial matters. in rape, however, a testimony from any one female may be considered one whole testimony.
You say your 'American side' thinks one thing but then go on to explain why you believe something completely different...
How do you reconcile this difference between what you feel is right and what the Quran teaches?
This post was edited by Scaly on Sep 23 2014 11:23am