Total Posts:66|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Euthanasia

brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2010 7:34:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Mothers often tell their children: "mother knows best" and perhaps that's the last thing evil killer Francis Inglis said to her son, Thomas, as she snuffed out his life?

She certainly never felt any remorse or regret for injecting her son with a lethal dose of heroin because instead of accepting her conviction for murder, the evil, calculating killer appealed, telling the court that she believed her son was in "constant pain".

However, her conviction was rightly upheld and the Court heard:

"The fact is that he (the victim) was alive, a person in being. However brief the time left for him, that life could not lawfully be extinguished.

Similarly, however disabled Thomas might have been, a disabled life, even a life lived at the extremes of disability, is not one jot less precious than the life of an able-bodied person.

Thomas's condition made him especially vulnerable, and for that among other reasons, whether or not he might have died within a few months anyway, his life was protected by the law, and no one, not even his mother, could lawfully step in and bring it to a premature conclusion."

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

I believe the laws on "mercy" killings should not be relaxed, what do you think?
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2010 7:55:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Did he ask to be put down? If so then I see nothing wrong with it, and I'm disappointed at the court.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2010 7:57:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
What's the reason behind forcing someone to stay alive in constant pain for several months, confined to a hospital bed, with no possibility of recovery?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2010 8:05:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/12/2010 7:57:32 AM, OreEle wrote:
What's the reason behind forcing someone to stay alive in constant pain for several months, confined to a hospital bed, with no possibility of recovery?

exactly. If I have cancer or something, and it get to the point that its untreatable, and I will not recover, I would want to be able to choose when to die. It should be easier on the family too, because they would know when to be there and everything, and it would keep the victim from being in pain for as long.
Its just cruel to make them stay alive like that if they don't want to.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2010 8:13:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/12/2010 8:05:21 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 11/12/2010 7:57:32 AM, OreEle wrote:
What's the reason behind forcing someone to stay alive in constant pain for several months, confined to a hospital bed, with no possibility of recovery?

exactly. If I have cancer or something, and it get to the point that its untreatable, and I will not recover, I would want to be able to choose when to die. It should be easier on the family too, because they would know when to be there and everything, and it would keep the victim from being in pain for as long.
Its just cruel to make them stay alive like that if they don't want to.

True, although in this case, I do see a potential issue (please forgive me, but BBC is blocked on my work computer so I can only read what is in this forum, not the actual news).

It appears that the mother made this decision on her own. I feel that this kind of decision should only be made with guidence of a doctor (I recall a satire of a women telling the doctors to pull the plug on her husband, even though he only had the flu). I also have issue with the death being administered via OD of herione. I don't know if there was other family involved or what their thoguhts were on the matter (if this was just the mom that wanted to put him out of his misery, or if the whole family agreed).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2010 10:44:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
If people are in constant pain and know they have no hope of recovery then ,yes. Let them euthanize if they want to. There should be a doctor's consent first though.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2010 11:43:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
To me, this issue if very simple:

If the person were in good health, they would be capable of killing themselves.

If they are not and someone else must do it, how is this different than if the person killed him or herself?

Dr. Death could have continued his entire career without arrest if he simply continued providing patients the means of killing themselves. Instead, he chose to raise awareness of the issue by euthanizing someone himself and videotaping it.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2010 11:47:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/12/2010 11:43:01 AM, bluesteel wrote:
Dr. Death could have continued his entire career without arrest if he simply continued providing patients the means of killing themselves. Instead, he chose to raise awareness of the issue by euthanizing someone himself and videotaping it.

Successful troll was successful.
JimProfit
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2010 12:29:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What's the reason behind forcing someone to stay alive in constant pain for several months, confined to a hospital bed, with no possibility of recovery?
It's not simply about that. Why do the liberal left rely so much on "feelings"?

Where were "feelings" when people kill their spouses and family members to collect inheritance? You don't think signatures would be forged and crap to say "oh, they wanted to die", just to collect a big inheritance? While this stems from the intristic problem of private property and monetary value, it doesn't change the fact people would do it more often for the wrong reasons.

Infact, even without capitalism, immagine "I" was the one incharge. You don't think I'd lie and say someone wanted to die? Hellz yeah I would. Especially if it was some punk moderator. He took away my voice, I take his precious few months to live. Now, there's no absolute way to prove guilt or innocence, as Noam Chomskey suggests. We don't know what's going on in the heads of others. But assisted suicides and euthanisia will always come down too was the person doing it for themself or for the other person? What if the person just says they want to die because they're hysterical? Give them a day to cool off and they'd change their mind. How are people who can't speak or particularly move supposed to give their consent? Are we supposed to premeptively determine whether or not we want someone stabbing us if we happen to be in that situation? It's like we're back in the dark ages.

Now mind you, I'm not MORALLY opposed to euthanasia. Because like I said... I'd do it... and for all the wrong reasons. I just see the impracticality and reprocussions of it. Figure I'd just let that weigh on people's consciences. As there's always going to be @ssholes like me who capitalize on any decision.

You make euthanisia legal, I become like a civil serial killer.

You keep euthanisia illegal, and I get to do the happy dance watching people suffer, lifelessly in a bed for a few months whispering to them about how much I enjoy seeing their husk of a body rot in this sterile hospital room. Maybe I'll get lucky and see a tear roll down their eye.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2010 12:48:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/12/2010 12:29:12 PM, JimProfit wrote:
What's the reason behind forcing someone to stay alive in constant pain for several months, confined to a hospital bed, with no possibility of recovery?
It's not simply about that. Why do the liberal left rely so much on "feelings"?

part of being human, you may not understand.

Also, you failed to answer the question.


Where were "feelings" when people kill their spouses and family members to collect inheritance? You don't think signatures would be forged and crap to say "oh, they wanted to die", just to collect a big inheritance? While this stems from the intristic problem of private property and monetary value, it doesn't change the fact people would do it more often for the wrong reasons.

First, evidence please.

Second, irrelevent even with eveidence, since we are talking about someone that is going to die in a few months anyway. Not someone that is going to live another 20 years.


Infact, even without capitalism, immagine "I" was the one incharge.

Then I'd really want to be euthanized.

You don't think I'd lie and say someone wanted to die? Hellz yeah I would.

I guess that speaks to your character.

Especially if it was some punk moderator. He took away my voice, I take his precious few months to live. Now, there's no absolute way to prove guilt or innocence, as Noam Chomskey suggests. We don't know what's going on in the heads of others. But assisted suicides and euthanisia will always come down too was the person doing it for themself or for the other person? What if the person just says they want to die because they're hysterical?

Strawman, no one here is advocating that.

Give them a day to cool off and they'd change their mind. How are people who can't speak or particularly move supposed to give their consent? Are we supposed to premeptively determine whether or not we want someone stabbing us if we happen to be in that situation? It's like we're back in the dark ages.

It's called a will, you can put it in there that if you are in that situation, what would you want. That way you can think about it while your head is clear. I'm 23 and I have it in my will (as does my wife).


Now mind you, I'm not MORALLY opposed to euthanasia. Because like I said... I'd do it... and for all the wrong reasons. I just see the impracticality and reprocussions of it. Figure I'd just let that weigh on people's consciences. As there's always going to be @ssholes like me who capitalize on any decision.

You make euthanisia legal, I become like a civil serial killer.

You keep euthanisia illegal, and I get to do the happy dance watching people suffer, lifelessly in a bed for a few months whispering to them about how much I enjoy seeing their husk of a body rot in this sterile hospital room. Maybe I'll get lucky and see a tear roll down their eye.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2010 1:32:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/12/2010 1:21:11 PM, Ren wrote:
These all sound like arguments and considerations very alike that concerning abortion.

not really, since most of these are talking about if someone is about to die anyway, which usually doesn't come up in abortion debates (at least not with me).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2010 1:34:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/12/2010 1:32:28 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/12/2010 1:21:11 PM, Ren wrote:
These all sound like arguments and considerations very alike that concerning abortion.

not really, since most of these are talking about if someone is about to die anyway, which usually doesn't come up in abortion debates (at least not with me).

Of course it does.

"What about children that will be born with some congenital disease or was harmed by the mother (drinking/smoking/drugs/STDs) and will suffer until death--would you say that an abortion is in order then?"

I hear that argument constantly; pro-choicers often consider it one of their strongest points.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2010 1:35:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I always wondered why people were so upset about the youth-in-asia.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2010 1:51:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/12/2010 7:34:42 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:

Similarly, however disabled Thomas might have been, a disabled life, even a life lived at the extremes of disability, is not one jot less precious than the life of an able-bodied person.


Indeed it is for that reason we should have euthanasia.

It sounds to me like this woman should be free. If you want to do someone for murder then do the ambulance staff who allowed this accident to happen.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2010 2:00:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/12/2010 1:34:42 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/12/2010 1:32:28 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/12/2010 1:21:11 PM, Ren wrote:
These all sound like arguments and considerations very alike that concerning abortion.

not really, since most of these are talking about if someone is about to die anyway, which usually doesn't come up in abortion debates (at least not with me).

Of course it does.

"What about children that will be born with some congenital disease or was harmed by the mother (drinking/smoking/drugs/STDs) and will suffer until death--would you say that an abortion is in order then?"

unless the child is going to die within months of birth and is in a state of constant suffering (the timeline is subject to change of course), I'd say no.

If it is a baby that is bord with downs syndrome or some other disorder or disease that is not going to kill them, I would say no. Just like I would say no to someone getting diagnosed with diabetes asking to kill themselves over it.


I hear that argument constantly; pro-choicers often consider it one of their strongest points.

And it is a moot point since the majority of abortions are not done for this reason, much like when it is brought up that the mom's life is in danger or she was raped.

most pro-lifers (I hate that terminology, by the way, if the issue is abortion, it should be pro- or anti- abortion, since that is all we are talking about), support abortions if the mother's life is in danger, and most of them (though not as many, but still most) support abortion if she was raped. What is not supported is aborting simply because the baby is not wanted.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2010 2:09:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/12/2010 2:00:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/12/2010 1:34:42 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/12/2010 1:32:28 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/12/2010 1:21:11 PM, Ren wrote:
These all sound like arguments and considerations very alike that concerning abortion.

not really, since most of these are talking about if someone is about to die anyway, which usually doesn't come up in abortion debates (at least not with me).

Of course it does.

"What about children that will be born with some congenital disease or was harmed by the mother (drinking/smoking/drugs/STDs) and will suffer until death--would you say that an abortion is in order then?"

unless the child is going to die within months of birth and is in a state of constant suffering (the timeline is subject to change of course), I'd say no.

If it is a baby that is bord with downs syndrome or some other disorder or disease that is not going to kill them, I would say no. Just like I would say no to someone getting diagnosed with diabetes asking to kill themselves over it.

1. Down's Syndrome is a far cry from diabetes, as is HIV.
2. Not all cases of euthanasia involve "constant suffering."


I hear that argument constantly; pro-choicers often consider it one of their strongest points.

And it is a moot point since the majority of abortions are not done for this reason, much like when it is brought up that the mom's life is in danger or she was raped.

Why are the "majority" of abortions performed? And, why are the majority of euthanasias performed? Are you saying that the majority of euthanasias are performed for better reasons than the majority of abortions? If so, on what grounds?

most pro-lifers (I hate that terminology, by the way, if the issue is abortion, it should be pro- or anti- abortion, since that is all we are talking about)

These people named themselves in order to grant an emotional spin to what they're saying in the interest of strengthening their point by default. That's why the other end calls themselves "pro choice" rather than "pro abortion."

, support abortions if the mother's life is in danger

This is completely false, particularly because many people would be appalled if a mother were to save herself at the expense of her child once it is outside of the womb.

, and most of them (though not as many, but still most) support abortion if she was raped. What is not supported is aborting simply because the baby is not wanted.

I don't understand what the difference is between aborting a child because of a rape and aborting a child because it isn't wanted.

For example. Legally, it possible for a husband to rape a wife. I'll let you logically take it from there.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2010 2:36:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/12/2010 2:09:56 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/12/2010 2:00:53 PM, OreEle wrote:

unless the child is going to die within months of birth and is in a state of constant suffering (the timeline is subject to change of course), I'd say no.

If it is a baby that is bord with downs syndrome or some other disorder or disease that is not going to kill them, I would say no. Just like I would say no to someone getting diagnosed with diabetes asking to kill themselves over it.

1. Down's Syndrome is a far cry from diabetes, as is HIV.

I don't support it in that case either.

2. Not all cases of euthanasia involve "constant suffering."

your point? I'm not defending the status quo for euthanasia.


And it is a moot point since the majority of abortions are not done for this reason, much like when it is brought up that the mom's life is in danger or she was raped.

Why are the "majority" of abortions performed? And, why are the majority of euthanasias performed? Are you saying that the majority of euthanasias are performed for better reasons than the majority of abortions? If so, on what grounds?

Again, I'm not defending the status quo for euthanasias so I'm under no obligation to defend the reasoning behind them.

http://www.abortionno.org...
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net...
http://www.guttmacher.org...


most pro-lifers (I hate that terminology, by the way, if the issue is abortion, it should be pro- or anti- abortion, since that is all we are talking about)

These people named themselves in order to grant an emotional spin to what they're saying in the interest of strengthening their point by default. That's why the other end calls themselves "pro choice" rather than "pro abortion."

Yes, they are just names that are picked to sound good. They are basically red-herrings, since they are intended to distract from the actual issue.


, support abortions if the mother's life is in danger

This is completely false, particularly because many people would be appalled if a mother were to save herself at the expense of her child once it is outside of the womb.

A new york times poll in 2007 found that only 14% of americans believe that abortion should be completely illegal.

http://www.abortionpolls.com...

There are plenty of other polls for you on this to.


, and most of them (though not as many, but still most) support abortion if she was raped. What is not supported is aborting simply because the baby is not wanted.

I don't understand what the difference is between aborting a child because of a rape and aborting a child because it isn't wanted.

I'm sorry you don't see a difference.


For example. Legally, it possible for a husband to rape a wife. I'll let you logically take it from there.

yes, legally he can, and if he did I'd support her getting an abortion (along with her getting a divorce and pressing charges).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2010 2:54:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/12/2010 12:48:04 PM, OreEle wrote:
feeding the troll

Stop it.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2010 2:55:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/12/2010 2:54:02 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 11/12/2010 12:48:04 PM, OreEle wrote:
feeding the troll

Stop it.

kill joy
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2010 3:01:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/12/2010 2:36:43 PM, OreEle wrote:
I don't support it in that case either.

So, let me get this straight.

Let's say that it is not ascertained that a baby has a certain condition that causes it to quickly die after excruciating pain until after it is born--do you "support" that the baby is thus killed immediately?

your point? I'm not defending the status quo for euthanasia.

My point is the same as it always was, since my first post on the issue. Euthanasia and abortion seem rather synonymous. Or, more accurately, that abortion is a form of euthanasia.

Again, I'm not defending the status quo for euthanasias so I'm under no obligation to defend the reasoning behind them.

See infra.

http://www.abortionno.org...
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net...
http://www.guttmacher.org...

Uh huh....?

Yes, they are just names that are picked to sound good. They are basically red-herrings, since they are intended to distract from the actual issue.

Uh, not really. It's rather appropriate, based on each respective side's primary argument.

A new york times poll in 2007 found that only 14% of americans believe that abortion should be completely illegal.

1. The New York Times is a newspaper centered in New York City.

2. New York State is democratic and thus, agrees with most democratic ideals, including a pro-choice stance.

3. New York City is 21st most liberal city in the world (there are 276 cities in the United States).

I don't understand what the difference is between aborting a child because of a rape and aborting a child because it isn't wanted.

I'm sorry you don't see a difference.

Why? You see a difference between aborting a child because he or she isn't wanted in general and aborting a child because he or she isn't wanted for a specific reason? Please, enlighten me.

yes, legally he can, and if he did I'd support her getting an abortion (along with her getting a divorce and pressing charges).

Alright, I figured you'd say something like that. You see, rape is simply sex without consent. Therefore, let's say that a man is feeling frisky and decides to wake his wife up by pleasuring her sexually. If she so chooses, she can consider this rape. If indeed, she becomes pregnant from this, your rationale makes it necessary to have an abortion.

But, I don't know. That sounds rather contradictory to me.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2010 3:06:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/12/2010 1:35:38 PM, bluesteel wrote:
I always wondered why people were so upset about the youth-in-asia.

Do you know what they do to young girls in china? Or if they are twins or something?
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2010 3:39:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/12/2010 3:01:13 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/12/2010 2:36:43 PM, OreEle wrote:
I don't support it in that case either.

So, let me get this straight.

Let's say that it is not ascertained that a baby has a certain condition that causes it to quickly die after excruciating pain until after it is born--do you "support" that the baby is thus killed immediately?

That depends on the condition and the survival rate. If the mom is 7 weeks along and they believe that the baby will have some disorder that causes it to die 2 days after being born, but they are not sure, then they should wait until they are sure within reasonable doubt by a medical professional.

Do not support "hey, your baby might possibly have this disease, you wanna nip that little bugger in the bud right now?"


your point? I'm not defending the status quo for euthanasia.

My point is the same as it always was, since my first post on the issue. Euthanasia and abortion seem rather synonymous. Or, more accurately, that abortion is a form of euthanasia.

I would disagree on that, euthanasia is done mostly for the sake of the person that is dying, abortion is rarely done (less then 10%) for the sake of the baby's suffering and mostly done for the mother-to-be.

How often does a family say "pull the plug, we don't want him around anymore"?

Then compare that to the % if abortions that are to save the baby from suffering a short life.

Again, I'm not defending the status quo for euthanasias so I'm under no obligation to defend the reasoning behind them.

See infra.

http://www.abortionno.org...
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net...
http://www.guttmacher.org...

Uh huh....?

you asked how often for different reasons, there they are.


Yes, they are just names that are picked to sound good. They are basically red-herrings, since they are intended to distract from the actual issue.

Uh, not really. It's rather appropriate, based on each respective side's primary argument.

not really, since they are applying broad terms to a general issue. Many who are "pro-life" are not "pro-life" when it comes to the death penalty. And many who are "pro-choice" are not "pro-choice" when it comes to the death penalty.


A new york times poll in 2007 found that only 14% of americans believe that abortion should be completely illegal.

1. The New York Times is a newspaper centered in New York City.

2. New York State is democratic and thus, agrees with most democratic ideals, including a pro-choice stance.

3. New York City is 21st most liberal city in the world (there are 276 cities in the United States).

Where the newspaper is centered is irrelevant. It is online and available to everyone. Just like the LA times.



I'm sorry you don't see a difference.

Why? You see a difference between aborting a child because he or she isn't wanted in general and aborting a child because he or she isn't wanted for a specific reason? Please, enlighten me.

Yeah, I also see a difference between skidding on the ice in your car and killing someone and in driving drunk in your car and killing someone. Both result in you accidently killing someone. But in one, it was your own irresponsibility that caused it, and one it was not.

When a woman is raped, her choice to engage in sex was taken away. In the other situation it wasn't. It's a "pro-choice" thing.


yes, legally he can, and if he did I'd support her getting an abortion (along with her getting a divorce and pressing charges).

Alright, I figured you'd say something like that. You see, rape is simply sex without consent. Therefore, let's say that a man is feeling frisky and decides to wake his wife up by pleasuring her sexually. If she so chooses, she can consider this rape. If indeed, she becomes pregnant from this, your rationale makes it necessary to have an abortion.

But, I don't know. That sounds rather contradictory to me.

She can consider it anything she wants. There are no laws against lying (unless under oath).

And in which case, if she tells the doctor "I was raped," her husband then gets arrested, and she has to testify under oath, and then we can see what she says.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2010 4:14:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/12/2010 1:35:38 PM, bluesteel wrote:
I always wondered why people were so upset about the youth-in-asia.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
20000miles
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2010 1:16:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
While most humans generally are against killing, there are certain circumstancing where there are exceptions (killing in self-defence, war and as a mode of punishment). Euthanasia might seem as a possible addition to this rule.

The major case in favour rests on two planks - utility and autonomy.

Clearly there are some conditions where one can imagine themselves better off non-existing. Late stages of cancer, where systematic organ failure is common, is one such state. So euthanasia makes nobody worse off than they currently are, in fact it makes the person being euthanised better-off.

Similarly, autonomy is important, as it permits us to waive rights that we usually have. For instance, while we all believe that hitting people is wrong, we permit people to punch each other in the face, provided that they agree to step into a boxing ring.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2010 2:55:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/14/2010 2:06:36 PM, Ren wrote:
I still don't see how any of these arguments differ from those supporting abortion.

Abortion and euthanasia differ because one is voluntary. Even if the person is in a coma they can first say "hey, If I'm in a coma for X amount of time, just pull the plug" cancer and AIDS victims are able to voice their wishes etc.
Abortion however comes down purely to outside choices which may be they can't afford even childbirth, there might be too many health risks for the child and/or mother, or whatever else might be going on.
With someone thats alive they are able to voice their opinions before or during, the time it would be needed. Even if they don't voice it, people that know "you" would know what "you" would want.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2010 3:01:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/14/2010 2:55:48 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 11/14/2010 2:06:36 PM, Ren wrote:
I still don't see how any of these arguments differ from those supporting abortion.

Abortion and euthanasia differ because one is voluntary. Even if the person is in a coma they can first say "hey, If I'm in a coma for X amount of time, just pull the plug" cancer and AIDS victims are able to voice their wishes etc.
Abortion however comes down purely to outside choices which may be they can't afford even childbirth, there might be too many health risks for the child and/or mother, or whatever else might be going on.
With someone thats alive they are able to voice their opinions before or during, the time it would be needed. Even if they don't voice it, people that know "you" would know what "you" would want.

Sigh.

I've received this argument way too many times, now.

Dude. Euthanasia is not always voluntary. Furthermore, many people would say that they would rather be aborted than born to parents that did not want them.

Next.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2010 3:03:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Also, neither cancer nor AIDS are altogether terminal. It depends on your attentiveness and how much money you have.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2010 3:14:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/14/2010 3:01:38 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/14/2010 2:55:48 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 11/14/2010 2:06:36 PM, Ren wrote:
I still don't see how any of these arguments differ from those supporting abortion.

Abortion and euthanasia differ because one is voluntary. Even if the person is in a coma they can first say "hey, If I'm in a coma for X amount of time, just pull the plug" cancer and AIDS victims are able to voice their wishes etc.
Abortion however comes down purely to outside choices which may be they can't afford even childbirth, there might be too many health risks for the child and/or mother, or whatever else might be going on.
With someone thats alive they are able to voice their opinions before or during, the time it would be needed. Even if they don't voice it, people that know "you" would know what "you" would want.

Sigh.

I've received this argument way too many times, now.

Dude. Euthanasia is not always voluntary. Furthermore, many people would say that they would rather be aborted than born to parents that did not want them.

Next.

So what your saying is basically that euthanasia is never voluntary
AIDS/cancer=/=death
and that some people might not want to have been born so its exactly the same as someone who does want to die.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave