Capital punishment is an extreme form of punishment but in many brutal cases seems justified. Those who oppose it under all circumstances have a variety of arguments against it. The leading arguments made are that it does not prevent murders and sometimes those executed have been innocent. It does keep that person from killing again. As for executing innocent people, the sentence should be imposed ONLY when there is NO doubt of guilt. Circumstantial cases do not fit that requirement.
I bring this up to draw a comparison between capital punishment and certain required medical procedures. Without a certainty that a particular treatment will not injure or kill a person, it should not be administered. If, in the case of capital punishment, we want ironclad proof of guilt, why shouldn't we require the same level of evidence that the treatment will not injure or kill the patient? Using the argument that it will benefit the many, those who are not injured or killed, does not justify the possibility that some will be injured or killed.
Whether or not the establishment will admit it, there is mounting evidence that MANY required vaccinations are not only not effective but downright dangerous for many people. Since we can't know ahead of time who the vulnerable are, those who do not want to accept the risk should be exempt from those requirements. I draw the comparison to capital punishment because the public's concern for the welfare of a few convicted killers who may be innocent, should be even more intense for the welfare of millions of babies and children. What if these innocents are condemned to a life with some disability or no life at all? Is that less important than a handful of unjustified executions.?
The accused murderer, guilty or innocent, has his day in court. Children, and some adults, face Russian Roulette mandates by people who have no interest in their welfare.
I bring this up to draw a comparison between capital punishment and certain required medical procedures. Without a certainty that a particular treatment will not injure or kill a person, it should not be administered. If, in the case of capital punishment, we want ironclad proof of guilt, why shouldn't we require the same level of evidence that the treatment will not injure or kill the patient? Using the argument that it will benefit the many, those who are not injured or killed, does not justify the possibility that some will be injured or killed.
Whether or not the establishment will admit it, there is mounting evidence that MANY required vaccinations are not only not effective but downright dangerous for many people. Since we can't know ahead of time who the vulnerable are, those who do not want to accept the risk should be exempt from those requirements. I draw the comparison to capital punishment because the public's concern for the welfare of a few convicted killers who may be innocent, should be even more intense for the welfare of millions of babies and children. What if these innocents are condemned to a life with some disability or no life at all? Is that less important than a handful of unjustified executions.?
The accused murderer, guilty or innocent, has his day in court. Children, and some adults, face Russian Roulette mandates by people who have no interest in their welfare.
No comments:
Post a Comment