News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Just the pro life crowd being inhumane. Nothing to see here.
To be fair, insofar as execution methods go, nitrogen asphyxiation is far far far and away the most humane.
So, like, it is an improvement? It's less inhumane than they were being at any rate?
Considered too cruel to be used by vets because of the clear signs of distress shown in animals to which it was administered. But this guy says it's good enough for humans!
It's important that a prisoner not just be killed, but can feel themselves dying, apparently.
I understand why you would think this seems peaceful. But we have no idea whether it is, anyone claiming otherwise is bullshitting or lying, and the entire idea of "humane" execution is an oxymoron to begin with.
Could you provide a reference for this? According to the Wikipedia article on inert gas asphyxiation:
This makes sense, but there's also a [citation needed] there. And even if true, it explicitly draws a distinction between these sorts of animals and humans, which the rest of the article is quite emphatic do not have sensitivity to low oxygen.
They were possibly confusing nitrogen with carbon dioxide. CO2 will definitely lead to distress in high concentrations, and has been used in some slaughterhouses.
The fucking US Veterinary Association published that it is only approved for pigs and even then recommends sedating the animal first because of observations of extreme distress. This is widely published -- find it if you want, I don't care at this point. Wikipedia is not going to undermine the countless medical organizations who all objected or condemned this shit. So sick of the wikipedia PhDs in this thread claiming to know what none of the doctors or medical researchers do.
Were you aware that humans aren't a subject of authority of the US Veterinary Association?
Still waiting on that reference, BTW.
Love that you had the time to get your degree from wikipedia but couldn't plug "veterinary association nitrogen asphyxiation" into a search engine and click the first, second, or third result.
For me, the first are a couple of UN articles about the subject that contain all of this information. But you couldn't be bothered to look this up because you can only do wikipedia "research" that confirms your priors, not that might contradict them.
Again, human medicine is not an area that the US Veterinary Association should be having much to say about.
You claim to have a reference, why aren't you pasting it? Surely that's easier than rambling on about it.
Blocking bad faith actors is my pastime.
It's more humane than lethal injection, the only other way we do it, which I think is the argument here
Lethal injection with heroin or carfentanyl would be pretty humane I would say
That's a completely separate argument than the comment you replied to was making.
Any suggestions for alternatives? The poor unfortunate souls on death row salute you. Can’t cause them any distress now. I’m sure their victims got the same consideration.
Good thing executing prisoners never gets the wrong people and always makes the victims whole.
I would not say executing innocents is a good thing. I understand your compassion though. It speaks well to you. Unfortunately there is usually no being made whole when it comes to tragedy. I believe the bar for proving guilt when the death penalty is involved is quite high. I have seen the cases of the few exonerated from death row and I am thankful for that. There are people out there fighting for those wrongly accused. However, there are many more clear cut open and shut cases of those not deserving to exist among their fellow man who have done things to the innocent that are hard to even read.
Oh the bar is quite high. No problem then, it will only be a small number of definitely innocent people we murder.
How about we can execute people, but if they're later exonerated every single person involved in the execution themselves gets executed automatically. I think that may enforce a high enough standard for me.
The very idea that violence demands violence in response is terrible for humankind.
Humans don't have low oxygen sensitivity. That's pretty well established fact. Nitrogen asphyxiation is basically "little bit dizzy -> pass out -> dead."
It is absolutely, certainly, no question more humane than any other method of execution.
Note, I don't say that it is humane, just that it's more humane. And I'd much prefer that, if an execution is going to happen, it be as humane as possible.
Oh, you've done it? Tell me about your specific medical expertise that is greater than... basically every medical organization that has spoken on the subject. Is your expertise also that you read a wikipedia page?
Pretty much everything real on the subject is about industrial accidents, which are not really analagous, or from the few examples of euthanasia with nitrogen pods -- and the information provided by Dr. Philip Nitschke who researched the actual N2 aspyxiation euthanasia devices and who publicly said the Alabama method was not like that at all and was likely to cause significant pain and distress.
~22 minutes is now being reported, with the guy struggling, gasping, resisting, fighting, trying not to die. Fighting for his life on the gurney. This method provides no guarantees, no timelines, and DEFINITELY is not the nonsense people are describing about "gentle sleep" or whatever the fuck.
I suspect you and the people in this thread have exactly the same level of expertise as the Al lawmakers and agencies that allowed this to happen: bullshit none.
I thought, hmm, maybe this guy is right, and there is some body of research that says nitrogen asphyxiation is actually painful, so I tried to find a source to that fact. I couldn't find a single one.
I found many saying the Alabama protocols for administering it were bad, and could prolong the process.
I found many saying that leakages were dangerous, as the other people in the room might die of nitrogen asphyxiation without even knowing it was happening.
I've read that the man being executed really really would like to not be executed, and is fighting tooth and nail to prevent it, leading to thrashing about on the gurney.
I've found sources saying that testing out novel execution methods on inmates is by definition torture, and cruel and unusual punishment.
But I can't find a single source that claims the process is physically painful. Maybe I'm wrong, and if so, I'd love to know. Can you link me something that says so? I mean this very sincerely. I'd like to be corrected if so.
But all I can find are those things listed above. Nothing at all that I can find that implies that nitrogen asphyxiation is anything other than unnoticeable to the person it kills.
But that IS the point. We don't know. It isn't studied -- cannot be studied ethically.
It is presumed to be painless based on unrelated case studies. And so people are proudly and confidently stepping forward to say "ignore the situations where it causes apparent pain and distress (animal examples), we'll just use very different industrial accidents where we THINK it maybe was painless but have no way to know and will use that to declare it is painless."
Meanwhile this guy struggled to live for over 20 minutes tied to a gurney.
You have a belief without evidence. You have to prove it. And we both know it is not going to happen because the research doesn't exist and would be unethical.
But people die from nitrogen asphyxiation all the time. It's in fact well studied that it is so deadly because it can kill you without you even knowing there is a problem. This is widely accepted as fact.
And we know that animals sense oxygen presence differently than humans. I can't find a single reputable source saying otherwise. All admit that humans don't sense oxygen deprivation the same way many other animals do.
And yes, this man struggled for 20min on a gurney. Just like he did when they tried to give him a lethal injection. They never even got the needle in for that one. Dude didn't want to die, which is super reasonable. Of course he struggled. It doesn't mean the method of execution was painful.
I don't have a belief without evidence. I have a belief based on accounts of people accidentally exposed to high nitrogen environments.
And while I certainly agree that it's unethical to study nitrogen asphyxiation by trying to kill people with it, that's not the only way to study the effects of breathing nitrogen on the human body. We study accidents and suicide attempts after the fact. We in fact can learn about things that kill people without actively and purposely killing people with them.
I don't know if you can call any execution method even remotely humane.
Even if you know it isn't going to hurt, you still know you're going to die. There's no escaping that part.
I didn't say it was. I said it was more humane.
If an execution is going to happen, I think doing it in the most humane way possible is better than torturing them to death. That's a positive switch, even if it's still bad.
People keep saying this, but it seems like this execution proved that it's not true.
How so? Cause the dude was vigorously fighting the guys holding a mask to his face to try and stop them from killing him? I don't think that's evidence that nitrogen asphyxiation is painful. Dude did the same thing with the lethal injection, and they never even managed to get the needle in.
the humane part, to me, is the struggle.
The inhumane part is putting someone through that and saying, "Good job."
To be fair, killing a blank slate is different than killing a guy everybody wants dead
2 problems here. Firstly a fetus is not alive so can't be killed. Secondly I didn't want that guy dead.
Hi, pro-choice mathematician who's done biology work here. Fetuses are alive. Fetuses are composed of living tissues. If a fetus was not alive, it wouldn't grow. If a fetus doesn't grow it can't be born. You will never win an argument with an anti-abortion nutjob if you get basic facts wrong. The reason a fetus doesn't have the same moral weight as the human it needs to live off of is because fetuses aren't sapient.
Strongly recommend not using this argument, or any of the ones showing up in this sub-thread. No one is going to be convinced on any of this. The people trying to ban abortion will never, ever be convinced by arguments about when life begins -- and will likely just become more certain that the pro choice crowd are full of callous monsters that don't grant dignity to life.
Read A Defense of Abortion, Judith Jarvis. It is the argument.
In a nutshell: it doesn't matter if the fetus is alive/a human/has a soul/whatever. You can grant that it is a full human being with rights from the beginning, even. Our ethical rules place autonomy of your own body hierarchically higher than preserving the life of someone else. That must be true or else it would be perfectly reasonable to harvest extra organs from people without their consent, take any or all property from citizens without cause to give to the needy, or draft individuals into whatever charitable work you wanted with no due process. There are very strict limits on how much charity a person can be mandated to participate in, and that limit is usually down to transient circumstances and taxes. It certainly does not dive into your flesh.
The state has no business enforcing control over decisions an individual makes about the contents of their own uterus, even if those decisions may lead to a death.
Whether or not it is RIGHT or GOOD to get an abortion doesn't even matter and, frankly, isn't worth debating. That is a subjective question. All that matters is whether the state is allowed to step in and prevent it from happening -- and they aren't.
The only thing marking a clear difference between a fetus and any other person is the fetus's need of the womb to live. And unfortunately for the fetus, one person's need of some service to live is not sufficient to enslave another.
Arguments with unreasonable people aren't won by making the unreasonable person change their mind they're won by showing the audience that the person is unreasonable, which in turn shows their word can't be trusted.
I don't think any undecided audience will be convinced by this "mass of cells"-style argument either. But to someone who DOES worry that it is a 'person' being aborted, hearing someone else dismiss that life makes it seem like the pro-choice people are callous and uncaring.
If you're arguing for an audience, all the more reason to be explicit and clear about the underlying ethical conviction rather than just a subjective opinion about what is and isn't life. How this is about a person's right to make the right choice for themselves, privately.
Either that or talk about the pain and hardship brought on by pregnancy, especially pregnancy caused by violence, and the benefit the abortion can provide. That can also be pretty compelling.
You would have a hard time convincing me that a newborn was a sapient being.
I don't see how that's relevant to the point.
1 - it's still stopping the existence of an organism and preventing a human life from happening after it already started to happen. Call it not killing something, but we're basically arguing semantics. I'm pro choice, but I mean, own what you are doing. It's not exactly preventative it's reactive.
2 - idk and idc who this hitman guy is, I meant your usual death row guy who viscously killed/etc multiple people in a horrifying way. Someone an overwhelming majority of people would have no problem with being killed. Someone who has demonstrated we permanently need out of society and has spread suffering. I'm anti death penalty, but not because there's any love lost with those people - only because we convict and kill the wrong people sometimes.
Well yes, but you referred to terminating a pregnancy as "killing a blank slate". The use of the term "killing" has obvious emotional connotations which you were co-opting to support your position. If you're going to do that then you need to be prepared to defend the appropriateness of that particular verb.
You're assuming that people generally support killing repugnant criminals, which is not the case. There are some truly awful people in the world, and they may well "deserve" to die, but I do not wish them dead. I think you may find that this is a fairly commonly held position in contemporary society.
Yea, once someone rapes a child and tortures 3 people for hours before burning down a house, I'm philosophically fine with killing them. I didn't think that part was too much of a hot take.
Fair enough about you perceiving a connotation about the verbage, but also, it's killing something lol. If what I just did to this ant in my kitchen was killing it, then it's what's happening to that fetus.
You said "a guy everyone wants dead" which is obviously never going to be true.
I'm sure this sounds odd to you, but in contemporary society it kind of is a hot take to want someone dead.
That part I highlighted is a subject of debate, and since it hinges on opinions about the definitions of words rather than anything with a clear-cut objective measure it's a debate that's not going to be settled any time soon.
What a good thing that the state never, ever incorrectly convicts people of having done those things.
Any rights a fetus has are outweighed by the mother’s right to bodily autonomy.