Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Euthanasia
05-31-2008, 09:49 AM
Post: #1
Euthanasia
For anyone who disagrees with euthanasia...why do you? I have always wondered what the opposition thinks.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-25-2008, 08:22 PM
Post: #2
RE: Euthanasia
Euthanasia? That sounds so familiar..

Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.

-Sign hanging in Einstein's office at Princeton-
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-28-2008, 10:45 AM
Post: #3
RE: Euthanasia
NorthStar Wrote:Euthanasia? That sounds so familiar..

dictionary.com Wrote:Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition.

The version of this that is commonly argued against is the killing of humans especially through means other than withholding medical measures. There are a wide variety of arguments both ways, however my own opinion on the matter is not developed enough for me to really say much here.

HelpThisLife | Anime Forums
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2008, 05:36 PM
Post: #4
RE: Euthanasia
anarchyisbliss Wrote:For anyone who disagrees with euthanasia...why do you? I have always wondered what the opposition thinks.

The disagreement I have with euthanasia comes from the truth that human beings are not the masters of life and death. Only God has such authority. Man cannot play God.

Euthansia is anything but humane. It's a horrible answer to the subject of human suffering. It, like abortion, is based more on an utilitarian ethic obsessed with efficiency than with any notion of mercy or love. The one who lacks "quality of life" or that interferes with the "quality of life" for others is deemed unnecessary and therefore is an enemy which must be snuffed out.

Suffering is indeed a hard and at times very terrible thing to go through. But I believe in a God who suffered in a terrible way and therefore made suffering good. My God promises me that when we suffer we are the image of His Son who suffered for our sakes.

"I find your lack of faith disturbing..."-Darth Vader
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-18-2008, 12:00 AM
Post: #5
RE: Euthanasia
It is not a case of being deemed unnescessary in the case of euthanasia, the porcess is at the request of the subject, it is their choice on whether they wish to conitinues their life in incredible pain and suffering. The fates that many of these people face is worse than death, losing their mobility, ability to communicate, minds or suffering from chronic pain.

my atheism is just like your religion
only i subtract 1 one more god
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-18-2008, 11:29 AM
Post: #6
RE: Euthanasia
I'm sorry, but no matter how much the "subject" thinks that they have this right the fact is that morally speaking they don't. Our conscience bares witness that suicide at any age is wrong, young or old. We, as a society, do not accept teen suicide and even take measures to prevent it. But because someone is old or infirm they posess the right?

The difference between you and me is that your belief holds that suffering is useless, where my belief holds that suffering is not useless and that it is even beneficial; not only to the person suffering but to those who share in that suffering. My belief holds that thier suffering has an eternal redemptive value.

Your answer to suffering is total death-physical and spiritual, where my answer to suffering is greater life.

"I find your lack of faith disturbing..."-Darth Vader
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-18-2008, 02:07 PM
Post: #7
RE: Euthanasia
The Grey Pilgrim Wrote:I'm sorry, but no matter how much the "subject" thinks that they have this right the fact is that morally speaking they don't. Our conscience bares witness that suicide at any age is wrong, young or old. We, as a society, do not accept teen suicide and even take measures to prevent it. But because someone is old or infirm they posess the right?

The difference between you and me is that your belief holds that suffering is useless, where my belief holds that suffering is not useless and that it is even beneficial; not only to the person suffering but to those who share in that suffering. My belief holds that thier suffering has an eternal redemptive value.

Your answer to suffering is total death-physical and spiritual, where my answer to suffering is greater life.

Morals are not absolute! You may feel the person choosing death doesn't have that right, but they may not share your moral outlook.

If ignorance is bliss why aren't there more happy people?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-18-2008, 03:56 PM
Post: #8
RE: Euthanasia
damian.hoffman Wrote:
The Grey Pilgrim Wrote:I'm sorry, but no matter how much the "subject" thinks that they have this right the fact is that morally speaking they don't. Our conscience bares witness that suicide at any age is wrong, young or old. We, as a society, do not accept teen suicide and even take measures to prevent it. But because someone is old or infirm they posess the right?

The difference between you and me is that your belief holds that suffering is useless, where my belief holds that suffering is not useless and that it is even beneficial; not only to the person suffering but to those who share in that suffering. My belief holds that thier suffering has an eternal redemptive value.

Your answer to suffering is total death-physical and spiritual, where my answer to suffering is greater life.

Morals are not absolute! You may feel the person choosing death doesn't have that right, but they may not share your moral outlook.

To say that morals are not absolute is false. By rejecting a morality you are by default accepting a morality that is opposite and equally imposing. By rejecting the morality of the natural law you are accepting a morality contrary to it but that is no less imposing.

There is a utilitarian philosopher that sits on the board at Havard university, his name is Peter Singer. This is a guy who, if nothing else, would appear logically consistent to his ethic. He put forth that if we as a society can arbitrarily destroy life in the womb, then there is ethically no arguement to society ending life in old age or anywhere in between. If life in the womb is negotiable than so is everything else.

That is until his mother was diagnosed with cancer.

According to his ethic since she was going to suffer and was going to be a tremendous financial burden on him and his sisters that he should just have her euthanized.

Guess what? He didn't. Why? He loved her.

When asked why he didn't follow his principles? He said that it wasn't a failure in his principles but a failure of will on his part.

Death is not the answer to suffering. And society and government has not only the right but the responsibility to protect people who are weak and defenseless. Even if that means protecting them from themselves.

"I find your lack of faith disturbing..."-Darth Vader
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-18-2008, 05:10 PM
Post: #9
RE: Euthanasia
The Grey Pilgrim Wrote:To say that morals are not absolute is false. By rejecting a morality you are by default accepting a morality that is opposite and equally imposing. By rejecting the morality of the natural law you are accepting a morality contrary to it but that is no less imposing.

Not true. There are not just two moral codes, there are many. You are also falsely conflating your moral code to some "natural law" that doesn't exist. Morals exist at both the individual and societal levels. While some morals are fairly consistent throughout most societies, both past and present, they are by no means present in every society. Societal mores also have a habit of changing over time. Morals vary to an even greater extent at the individual level, and are acquired through external stimuli. People are not born with a moral code, and morals are not written into DNA.

Your claim that the morality contrary to your own is no less imposing is also false. Your morals seek to eliminate peoples choices because they conflict with your beliefs. My morals, on the other hand, allow everyone, even you, to have your own beliefs and to act according to them - as long as it does not interfere with anyone else's ability to do so.

The Grey Pilgrim Wrote:There is a utilitarian philosopher that sits on the board at Havard university, his name is Peter Singer. This is a guy who, if nothing else, would appear logically consistent to his ethic. He put forth that if we as a society can arbitrarily destroy life in the womb, then there is ethically no arguement to society ending life in old age or anywhere in between. If life in the womb is negotiable than so is everything else.

That is until his mother was diagnosed with cancer.

According to his ethic since she was going to suffer and was going to be a tremendous financial burden on him and his sisters that he should just have her euthanized.

Guess what? He didn't. Why? He loved her.

When asked why he didn't follow his principles? He said that it wasn't a failure in his principles but a failure of will on his part.

Great...what's the relevance? You do know that single case anecdotal evidence is irrelevant in philosophical discussions, right?

The Grey Pilgrim Wrote:Death is not the answer to suffering. And society and government has not only the right but the responsibility to protect people who are weak and defenseless. Even if that means protecting them from themselves.

Says you. Personally, I find your sado-masochistic view of suffering repulsive, and I hope I am never forced by law to abide by your moral code. There is an incredible amount of arrogance inherent in the statement that people need to be protected from themselves. You are basically asserting that you know better than they what's good for them. You have not lived their life, and have no idea what has influenced their decisions. Let people make their own decisions about their life, even if that includes ending it. If your god exists, he will judge their actions.

If ignorance is bliss why aren't there more happy people?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-23-2008, 04:12 PM
Post: #10
RE: Euthanasia
damien.hoffman Wrote:Not true. There are not just two moral codes, there are many. You are also falsely conflating your moral code to some "natural law" that doesn't exist. Morals exist at both the individual and societal levels. While some morals are fairly consistent throughout most societies, both past and present, they are by no means present in every society. Societal mores also have a habit of changing over time. Morals vary to an even greater extent at the individual level, and are acquired through external stimuli. People are not born with a moral code, and morals are not written into DNA.

Your claim that the morality contrary to your own is no less imposing is also false. Your morals seek to eliminate peoples choices because they conflict with your beliefs. My morals, on the other hand, allow everyone, even you, to have your own beliefs and to act according to them - as long as it does not interfere with anyone else's ability to do so.

I disagree.

Morality, at its fundamental core, involves two rules:

1)do good and

2) avoid evil.


It is up to right reason to decide the good to be done and the evil to be avoided. This is the Natural Law and it is imprinted on the heart of every human being.

So when I say that by rejecting morality you must accept a morality that is opposite and equally imposing-that of doing evil and avoiding good-is in fact true.

The moral relativism that you suggest is in fact fallen man's attempt to balance his own disordered desires with the Natural Law that, try as he may to reject, is still subject to.

Let's start off by confirming that hard cases do exist and that we will both agree that those cases depend on circumstances that must be examined. By and large these are the exceptions on morality and not the rule.

Everyone will always agree that murder is wrong, lying is wrong, betrayal is wrong, stealing is wrong.

Two, man, by the fact that he posesses free will, is the father of his acts. Choice is not the end or the goal of the moral law. Choice is the means to achieve either a good or a bad end. Moral choices are based on three criteria: the object chosen, the intent, and the circumstances. For a moral choice to be good all three of these criteria must be met.

True freedom can only be acheived by choosing that which is in accord with the Natural Law. False freedom comes from ignoring the Natural Law and basing choice on selfish whims.

True morality ins't in the eye of the beholder, and thank God its not! Studying history I've seen what happens when men make morality subject to their own whims-Hitler and Stalin come to mind. True morality is universal and transcendant and society's laws must subject themselves to it's truth.

Answer me this: imagine society as a train on a railroad track. Desiring to be free it jumps the track. How free is a train after it jumps the track?

damian.hoffman Wrote:Great...what's the relevance? You do know that single case anecdotal evidence is irrelevant in philosophical discussions, right?

The point is that an ethic that can't be lived in practice isn't an ethic at all-its a false ethic.

damian.hoffman Wrote:Says you. Personally, I find your sado-masochistic view of suffering repulsive, and I hope I am never forced by law to abide by your moral code.

I'm sorry you misunderstand my position on this. I think your characterization of me being sado-masochistic is a little short-sighted on your part. Technology has ways of easing and eleviating the suffering of those in pain and those methods should and are being used. My contention is that we should not subject a human life to a cost cutting analysis. If someone on their own decides to put a bullet in their head because they can't take it anymore they'll have to answer for themselves. To drag health professionals and others into the situation and commit suicide/murder under the pretense of "mercy" is to make not only the subject but those involved also culpable in the crime. To institutionalize such a thing would be a cancer to society.

damian.hoffman Wrote:There is an incredible amount of arrogance inherent in the statement that people need to be protected from themselves. You are basically asserting that you know better than they what's good for them. You have not lived their life, and have no idea what has influenced their decisions. Let people make their own decisions about their life, even if that includes ending it. If your god exists, he will judge their actions.

Absolutely, God will judge all of our actions. I would be failing in love-loving you and my other neighbors-if I kept silent about these truths.

If one of your friends was sitting on the couch next to you, suffering in despair, with a gun in his mouth would you just sit there thinking, "just let him make his own decision."? Would you take the gun from him and "assist" him by putting the bullet in his head yourself? Or would you, out of love, try to convince him out of love that there is hope, that he has something to live for, and that suicide isn't the answer?

"I find your lack of faith disturbing..."-Darth Vader
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Legalisation of euthanasia Birdy 3 252 03-07-2017 10:58 PM
Last Post: Imprecise Interrupt



User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)