Aight, so let's look at it this way: If I have 10 rose bushes and 5 of them are bad because I didn't spend the quality time that a rose bush needs, then I wasted time and money by letting half of my rose bushes to go bad. But if I have 5 rose bushes and spend the right amount of time for all of them, I got 5 great rose bushes and I didn't waste my time. High five everyone! You gotta have quality over quantity
There comes a point where life becomes unlivable and kindness can quickly transform into a type of cruelty. It is not the more humane option, the merciful option, to permit wanton suffering simply on the justification that we are safeguarding the "sanctity"---a loaded term in my opinion---of life. If life is going to be deemed sacred it must be worthy of that lofty title.
Is sanctity commonly regarded as the "right" thing. Because if it is I want to know when people started believing that quality was anything other than doing the right thing. When was the wrong thing valued over the right thing? Is living a life of sanctity not quality? There is no difference.
I think George Carlin expressed it best when he said that most sources of our will to live is based on self-interest. We ascribe such worth and significance to life in large part because we ourselves are alive, we all have first hand experience of being alive. Therefore, we know it would suck tremendously to have it interrupted. On the other hand, if one were more realistic rather than idealistic, there would be no point in living without higher priority on quality. A bunch of new tools in a toolbox would not be very useful if they only collected dust, who would care about those tools? It's the measure in which humans are useful that makes life worth while, not in how large of a number they are.
In 1900 in the U.S., the average life expectancy was below 50 years of age, since then that number has risen to about 80. Seeing that is the average number, that means that many people are living well into their 100's. Sorry, I mean they are alive well into their 100's not living. With little exception, by the time people reach the age of 80 they are disabled to the point that they are unable to function as a member of society. This is not just physically but mentally.
If you ask me, I would rather die at a much younger age than to be a burden on family and society. Wasting away, being kept alive by a list of medications as someone else feeds me, cleans me, and wipes my bottom.
Instead of working on ways to keep people alive, we should work on ways to keep them living. Once their quality of life falls to a point, we should offer them a dignified death vs. Forcing them to live a life of burden.
Of course this is 50/50, it's a political debate, a moral one. The sanctity of life comes up everywhere in our lives, whether it's abortion. We are destroying the sanctity of life, the woman may be in a bad situation, but her life isn't on the line. Would you choose the one who can live with a burden or destroy something with an even bigger burden to bear? The sanctity of life in another situation, animals. We don't even see them as lives, when they have just as much of a right to live as us. It's not about quantity vs. Quality. Because if we appreciated the sanctity of life more, it would improve quality of life.
Every single life has a chance to flourish and become great, no matter what the situation the life is placed in. Every one of those lives deserve a chance to change the world or make the world a better place than the state of the world when they were born with. By killing unborn babies, the elderly, the handicapped, and the useless, we are killing potentially great people. We are murdering possible leaders and great minds of the Earth just because they are useless or in a bad situation at the moment. All of our lives have a chance to flourish and become great. We must not take a life of a potentially great person and let them live to their fullest.