Euthanasia

I am writing a response paper to a young gir's essay on why euthanasia should be legalized. She had some interesting points:

"it is better we put them to rest so they can go on and never suffer anymore"
"would we want to pay for someone who has no hope of recovering?"
"Would Got want us to live our life miserably and suffer day after day?"
"If someone is suffering they should have the choice to die if they wish."
'Suicide is defined as the deliberate taking of one's life, whereas euthanasia means painlessly puting someone to death iin cases of terminal illnesses or comas."

Do those of you who believe that all forms (or if only for specific cases please state what they are) of euthanasia should be legalized, to these points ring true with you? If so, I have some questions I'd like to clarify.

Is there really a difference (besides the wording) of assisted suicide and suicide? Both are meant to end a person's life, and in both instances the person wants to die. Why are we sugarcoating it?
Does God not want us to suffer ever, or only if we have terminal illnesses? If never, then why cant a man just ask a doctor to give him an OD of a certain drug cause he is depressed?
Are we sure that we are ending a person's sufffering? Was Shiavo suffering? IMO she was a vegetable, not capable of feeling at all. IIRC, the husband stood to benefit from her death. Was he not engaged to another woman at the time of the decision?

Thanks in advance. I tried searching for these topics discussed during the Schiavo case, but the internet is hard.

[BCPVP]

[quote"Would Got want us to live our life miserably and suffer day after day?"

[/ QUOTE ]
If you believe in God, it probably means you believe he takes you when it's "your time", not just when they're miserable.

[ QUOTE ]
"If someone is suffering they should have the choice to die if they wish."

[/ QUOTE ]
There isn't much you can do about this that doesn't involve fearsome government regulation of our lives to make sure we don't end them.

[ QUOTE ]
'Suicide is defined as the deliberate taking of one's life, whereas euthanasia means painlessly puting someone to death iin cases of terminal illnesses or comas."

[/ QUOTE ]
There's a reason why suicidal people need help instead of someone cheering them on to "pull the trigger". They're sick (mentally) and if they get help they will probably regret wanting to kill themselves. If you euthanize them, there's no going back.

[ QUOTE ]
Was Shiavo suffering?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think anyone can know this.

[ QUOTE ]
IIRC, the husband stood to benefit from her death. Was he not engaged to another woman at the time of the decision?

[/ QUOTE ]
More or less. He'd fathered children with this other woman, obviously with blatant disregard for "...in sickness and in health..." Take that fwiw.

[jt1]

How old are you?

The secular humanist will say, 'sometimes a life isn't precious and only that individual has the right to decide if and when.'

The degenerate secularist will say, 'who cares'

the libertarians will say, 'do what you want - just shut the hell up about it'

the religious conservatives will say, 'all life is precious and only God can take it away' then they'll drop about 15 five ton bombs near civilian houses in the name of Democracy and self-defense.

[jt1]

I like you BCPVP and for you I will add another group.

The christian libertarians will beg you not to take your life, but defend your civil right to do it.

[ QUOTE ]
How old are you?

The secular humanist will say, 'sometimes a life isn't precious and only that individual has the right to decide if and when.'

The degenerate secularist will say, 'who cares'

the libertarians will say, 'do what you want - just shut the hell up about it'

the religious conservatives will say, 'all life is precious and only God can take it away' then they'll drop about 15 five ton bombs near civilian houses in the name of Democracy and self-defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost 19. Why does this matter? just curious or what?

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
Almost 19. Why does this matter? just curious or what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, just curious. I applaud your foray into objective thinking. I find it a nice hobby in my life and appreciate it when others have the same skill. God bless TwoPlusTwo!

[New001]

I only hope that if I ever end up in an unrecoverable, miserable state, that someone I love knows me well enough to end it for me.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I like you BCPVP and for you I will add another group.

The christian libertarians will beg you not to take your life, but defend your civil right to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Almost 19. Why does this matter? just curious or what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, just curious. I applaud your foray into objective thinking. I find it a nice hobby in my life and appreciate it when others have the same skill. God bless TwoPlusTwo!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm sure now you will hate me becuase I think that except in the most extreme cases it is morally wrong, just as suicide is, imo. I don't like being lumped into any of the groups you made, because they all have a problem with them.
First of all, I'm not a secularist, which takes down the first two. Also, I despise the fact that large numbers of civilians are killed, unlike some (not all) conservatives I know who flippantly say "well that happens in combat." To blatantly disregard an innocent human life because they are 'in the way', well, that don't sit well with me. I can take it, but I won't be happy with it. But the majority of conservatives, religious or not, don't sit well with it either, just as most democrats don't.
I suppose I could be considered a Christian Libertarian according to your view, but I like to defend laws saying it is illegal, not that it is a person's right to do it.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose I could be considered a Christian Libertarian according to your view, but I like to defend laws saying it is illegal, not that it is a person's right to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a dangerous way to view laws and rights...

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
To blatantly disregard an innocent human life because they are 'in the way', well, that don't sit well with me. I can take it, but I won't be happy with it. But the majority of conservatives, religious or not, don't sit well with it either, just as most democrats don't.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is not a profound moral outrage.

[ QUOTE ]
I can take it

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/frown.gif


That seems pretty flippant. Self-defense may be a valid excuse for killing mass numbers of innocent people, but only if your life is in direct danger...i.e. if a full scale invasion with the hopes of subjugation is imminent. Otherwise we'd be bombing in large metropolitan areas or conscripting young men into fatal danger like every other decade /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I suppose I could be considered a Christian Libertarian according to your view, but I like to defend laws saying it is illegal, not that it is a person's right to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a dangerous way to view laws and rights...

[/ QUOTE ]

Currently, except in the state of Oregon, euthanasia is illegal. Hence, "I support those laws" (that say it is illegal.) How is this dangerous? Im just supporting what is in place. Unless it was badly worded the first time.....

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
Currently, except in the state of Oregon, euthanasia is illegal. Hence, "I support those laws" (that say it is illegal.) How is this dangerous? Im just supporting what is in place. Unless it was badly worded the first time.....

[/ QUOTE ]


BCPVP is saying that there is absoltely no difference in principle between outlawing gambling and euthanasia. If the majority has the right to outlaw one immoral yet non-violent action then it has the right to outlaw them all.

btw, yes i know that suicide is violence towards oneself but I can't think of a word that means violence directed towards other people who aren't participating in and who don't condone what is being done.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Currently, except in the state of Oregon, euthanasia is illegal. Hence, "I support those laws" (that say it is illegal.) How is this dangerous?

[/ QUOTE ]
Defending a law because it is illegal is a circular argument. It's against the law and therefore it's illegal and it's illegal because it's against the law.

I have the right to worship whatever God I wish. Your wording would have you defending a law that said I couldn't because it was illegal. That's a dangerous point of view because it basically means we have no rights, only laws telling us what we may or may not do that are justified because they're laws.

[ QUOTE ]
a word that means violence directed towards other people who aren't participating in and who don't condone what is being done.


[/ QUOTE ]

Violence directed at people (who are not involved nor condone what is going on). Murder? And I was under the impression that assistes suicide was not banned simply for "moral" pretenses. Gov't feared it would grow out of control, etc. Is this totally wrong?

And the similarites between poker and euthanasia are not even close. Poker is not as morally reprehensible as the taking (willing or not) as a human life. Yet the government has outlawed poker (in most circumstances). Why do I not fear this? Because it will change sometime in the near future.

[New001]

I don't see why it should be an issue. If I am clearly in a vegitative state, or whatever you want to call it, I imagine I'd be miserable. You probably would be too. Your family would be miserable. It's not a good situation all around. However, if I have specifically given permission for a certain person to decide my fate, or for my spouse or parents or children to do so, or whatever, they should be allowed to do so.

"But who determines if I'm able to?" We have smart doctors in this country who I'd trust to decide that for me. Failing that, we have a court system that already has the power to kill violent criminals. I'm sure something could be rigged up.

You may find it morally reprehensible, or whatever you wish to call it, but I'd prefer if other people's morals were kept out (within reason, of course) of my decisions. Not surprisingly, I'm in favor of legalized drugs (and no, I'm not a user).

I understand your point of view, and there is a small part of me who wishes it could be that way for me. But my consience (not saying you don't have one, just that mine specifically) cannot let me see this happen without at least expressing my discontent with it. Similar to my feelings on abortion and the death penalty. I truly wish I could say "Let people do what they want, if they mess with other people, then we will step in." But I can't.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Currently, except in the state of Oregon, euthanasia is illegal. Hence, "I support those laws" (that say it is illegal.) How is this dangerous?

[/ QUOTE ]
Defending a law because it is illegal is a circular argument. It's against the law and therefore it's illegal and it's illegal because it's against the law.

I have the right to worship whatever God I wish. Your wording would have you defending a law that said I couldn't because it was illegal. That's a dangerous point of view because it basically means we have no rights, only laws telling us what we may or may not do that are justified because they're laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then my wording is the problem. Because I support THIS law. This doesn't mean that I would support a law saying you couldn't worship a certain god. I was saying that since there is a law that I agree with, I would side with it instead of saying "it should be changed." I believe people make decisions like this all the time. I think you may be reading into this a bit more than I intended.

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand your point of view, and there is a small part of me who wishes it could be that way for me. But my consience (not saying you don't have one, just that mine specifically) cannot let me see this happen without at least expressing my discontent with it. Similar to my feelings on abortion and the death penalty. I truly wish I could say "Let people do what they want, if they mess with other people, then we will step in." But I can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kudos for understanding at least, that's more than most people in this country would say.

[jt1]

I'm just a really nice, helpful guy!

[ QUOTE ]
And I was under the impression that assistes suicide was not banned simply for "moral" pretenses. Gov't feared it would grow out of control, etc. Is this totally wrong?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you are totally wrong. Theoretically, euthanaisa could turn into suicide for people who are depressed. It's unlikely, but since the two actions are close enough in principle, it is theoretically possible. The one big difference is that suicidal people are treatable whereas mortally ill people are not. However, it is possible that society would accidentally not consider that difference and go ahead and legalize assisted suicide to otherwise healthy people.

But the odds of it happening are so remote that a liberal could counter that the death penalty or any form of civil punishment should be prohibited, because, it may lead to the state killing/punishing innocent people on purpose.

[ QUOTE ]
And the similarites between poker and euthanasia are not even close. Poker is not as morally reprehensible as the taking (willing or not) as a human life. Yet the government has outlawed poker (in most circumstances). Why do I not fear this? Because it will change sometime in the near future.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are talking principles, my friend. We are attempting to identify logical arguments and we are following them to their conclusion. Yes, poker and euthunasia are two different things but that doesn't at all change the principles behind the laws that govern both actions. Nor does it matter that gambling may soon be legal, except in showing how frustratingly arbitrary our society is.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Then my wording is the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps. I'm very confused as to what your exact position is now.

[ QUOTE ]
I was saying that since there is a law that I agree with, I would side with it instead of saying "it should be changed."

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm failing to see how this matters. Most people side with laws they like instead of saying they should be changed. Do you mean, you support laws against euthanasia because you don't like euthanasia and to defend such laws you'd not their illegality instead of debating whether you have a right to suicide/assisted suicide? I don't understand. /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif

So what is the solution here? All things considered morally reprehensible should be made legal, because to make some (ie, poker) legal and others (euthanasia) not would be arbitrary? BTW, this is really helpful stuff, keep 'er comin. I need to figure out exactly where I stand here.

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
Kudos for understanding at least, that's more than most people in this country would say.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. The OP does deserve credit for this. He seems like a fairly tolerant guy, at least, for someone who wants to tell me how to live my life. (sorry - i couldn't resist)

[ QUOTE ]

I'm failing to see how this matters. Most people side with laws they like instead of saying they should be changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't supposed to really matter. that's why I'm so confused as to why you keep talking about it. I suppose I made it really more important sounding than it was. I was just stating how everybody acts concerning laws they support.

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
So what is the solution here? All things considered morally reprehensible should be made legal, because to make some (ie, poker) legal and others (euthanasia) not would be arbitrary? BTW, this is really helpful stuff, keep 'er comin. I need to figure out exactly where I stand here.


[/ QUOTE ]

i admire you kid! /images/graemlins/smile.gif You've got it. The exception is, of course, you can't hurt someone else against their own volition.

Let me put it one more way and then I'm signing off: Because I do things that "you" think are degenerate but I still want to continue doing them (strip clubs, binge drinking, gambling, etc), and because "you" do other things that I think are degenerate and you want to continue to do them (proseleytizing, book burning /images/graemlins/cool.gif joke /images/graemlins/cool.gif , etc) let us agree to let each other do what we want no matter how morally reprehensible we find each other.

As you all have probably figured out so far, this post is less about the girl's paper and more about me. Being questioned on specifics and the consequences of the policies I support forces me to look at where I really am on the issue. I started out this attempting to waste time while I wait for my laundry to get done (almost there.) I'm sorry if I seem confusing or contradictory in my posts, its because I AM confused and contradictory in my logic regarding the issue. After all, how do we formulate our "concrete" ideas on politics? By forcing ourselves to look at what may be wrong with our argument, and adjusting accordingly.

edit: Laundry has been done for 20 minutes. Damn politics...I can go to bed now.

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
edit: Laundry has been done for 20 minutes. Damn politics...I can go to bed now.

[/ QUOTE ]
I missed my laundry by a good 2 hours. I guess that's what I get for starting it at 2 in the morning.

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there really a difference (besides the wording) of assisted suicide and suicide? Both are meant to end a person's life, and in both instances the person wants to die. Why are we sugarcoating it?

[/ QUOTE ]

To me they are the same. We sugarcoat it because we sugarcoat everything these days. The packaging is more important than the content (unfortunately).

[ QUOTE ]

Does God not want us to suffer ever, or only if we have terminal illnesses? If never, then why cant a man just ask a doctor to give him an OD of a certain drug cause he is depressed?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have absolutely no idea what God wants.

[ QUOTE ]
Are we sure that we are ending a person's sufffering?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the person alive is in pain, and pain=suffering -- then yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Was Shiavo suffering?

[/ QUOTE ]

Shiavo had already been dead for years.

[ QUOTE ]
IMO she was a vegetable, not capable of feeling at all. IIRC, the husband stood to benefit from her death. Was he not engaged to another woman at the time of the decision?

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelavent. She was already dead.


I maintain asbolute authority over my body and my life. I don't really care what the constitution, congress, SCOTUS, or the Catholic church says. Period.

[caretaker1]

[ QUOTE ]

the religious conservatives will say, 'all life is precious and only God can take it away' then they'll drop about 15 five ton bombs near civilian houses in the name of Democracy and self-defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good stuff.