|
Post by thaddius on Oct 17, 2005 19:48:11 GMT -5
Im just wondering what people here think about this issue. Would legalized volintary euthanasia be good or bad for the nation? Should one have the right to die? Here are some links to info about euthanasia: plato.stanford.edu/entries/euthanasia-voluntary/www.ves.org.uk/index.htmen.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuthanasiaSome other info regarding the legality in the United States: Permitted in Oregon under very tightly controlled conditions. Not specifically mentioned in the laws of North Carolina, Utah and Wyoming. Specifically criminalized in the remaining states.
|
|
|
Post by TheStranger on Oct 17, 2005 19:59:16 GMT -5
Voluntary and all that I agree with. But I think it should be a persons right to choose if they want to die.*
And as for the compulsory euthanasia? It would only come to that if overpopulation was to go astronomically different from the way things have been going - so this wouldnt be the slippery slope at all, in my opinion.
*Whether they are terminally ill or not
|
|
|
Post by thaddius on Oct 17, 2005 20:03:06 GMT -5
What about people that do not have living wills and find themselves in a vegatative state?
|
|
|
Post by britney on Oct 17, 2005 20:11:02 GMT -5
What about people that do not have living wills and find themselves in a vegatative state? they should be killed on principle
|
|
|
Post by TheStranger on Oct 17, 2005 20:11:38 GMT -5
For the rest of their lives... Having that? I can guarantee that I wouldnt want to have to live like that. So i'd want for me, personally not to live that life. It should be a matter thought over on by family members of the person involved, assuming the person in question said nothing before the tragedy.
However, I wouldnt want to make wont of it. I mean, hospitals already have a problem of not being able to accomodate people. I think there needs more people involved in medical care professions. I wouldnt want to say, they should immediately be euthanised, but part of me thinks, "Is it really the best thing for them, or anyone?" Its a tough issue, i'll give you that.
Whats your opinion?
|
|
|
Post by thaddius on Oct 17, 2005 20:16:22 GMT -5
I do not see why it is prohibited in most countries. I do not understand the whole "slippery slope" argument. It is my life, if I should ever be in the position where I am in such discomfort, I believe that i should be able to go to the doctor to get a humane method of ending my suffering.
|
|
|
Post by TheStranger on Oct 17, 2005 20:19:35 GMT -5
I do not see why it is prohibited in most countries. I do not understand the whole "slippery slope" argument. It is my life, if I should ever be in the position where I am in such discomfort, I believe that i should be able to go to the doctor to get a humane method of ending my suffering. For me, too. I'd want to be dead rather than suffer that. Freedom of choice is what the issue is about that. But how about if there was overpopulation issues, and hospitals became even more overcrowded.... Would you think compulsory euthanisation is a necessary evil, or something to always avoid? I think its a necessary evil if it came to it.
|
|
|
Post by thaddius on Oct 17, 2005 20:51:38 GMT -5
Would it not be better to prevent that life from coming about in the first place rather than having to deal with ending it?
|
|
|
Post by eek on Oct 17, 2005 20:56:44 GMT -5
What about people that do not have living wills and find themselves in a vegatative state? They are effectively dead anyway. I'm all for voluntary euthanasia, and the above.
|
|
|
Post by yawmwen on Oct 17, 2005 21:35:05 GMT -5
Voluntary and all that I agree with. But I think it should be a persons right to choose if they want to die.* And as for the compulsory euthanasia? It would only come to that if overpopulation was to go astronomically different from the way things have been going - so this wouldnt be the slippery slope at all, in my opinion. * Whether they are terminally ill or notTotally the oposite. It is NOT your choice. It is the governments, and the government should be pro-life. Not pro-suicide. It is government murder.
|
|
|
Post by thaddius on Oct 17, 2005 21:38:15 GMT -5
Why is my life not my choice?
|
|
|
Post by Hunessai on Oct 17, 2005 21:50:48 GMT -5
Euthanasia is fine with me. You (supposedly) control how you live, so you should be able to control how you die. The government can kiss my if I want to commit suicide. This isn't like abortion where the mother/father decides for their baby- it's a person deciding for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by thaddius on Oct 17, 2005 21:55:01 GMT -5
Totally the oposite. It is NOT your choice. It is the governments, and the government should be pro-life. Not pro-suicide. It is government murder. Please explain how it is not my choice, as I am confounded by this statement of yours.
|
|
|
Post by TheStranger on Oct 17, 2005 22:19:49 GMT -5
Would it not be better to prevent that life from coming about in the first place rather than having to deal with ending it? If you think I meant people born into that life, its not. Totally the oposite. It is NOT your choice. It is the governments, and the government should be pro-life. Not pro-suicide. It is government murder. I'm not sure what the legal thing would say about it, but I dont care. I would like to see how the government has a right to say how long I live rather than I though.
|
|
|
Post by thaddius on Oct 17, 2005 22:24:42 GMT -5
Would it not be better to prevent that life from coming about in the first place rather than having to deal with ending it? If you think I meant people born into that life, its not. I meant to limit population growth in the first place, rather than having to worry about non voulantary euthanasia.
|
|
mastab
Gallant
Orgasmic Flooding
Free hugs!
Posts: 2,781
|
Post by mastab on Oct 17, 2005 22:42:55 GMT -5
Voluntary and all that I agree with. But I think it should be a persons right to choose if they want to die.* And as for the compulsory euthanasia? It would only come to that if overpopulation was to go astronomically different from the way things have been going - so this wouldnt be the slippery slope at all, in my opinion. * Whether they are terminally ill or notTotally the oposite. It is NOT your choice. It is the governments, and the government should be pro-life. Not pro-suicide. It is government murder. Ha ha, I always love your extreme right wing radical posts! If you are dying of cancer and know you will have a slow and horrible death do you want to end it peacefully, painlessly, and in a way that none of your family members would be caught off guard? If someone is not mentally fit to make decisions, don't let them have aces to euthanasia, but if they are, and if they make a decision to do it let them! It is their life! And if you are going to call pro-euthanasia people anti-life then I might just call you anti-choice. That means no capitalism for you!
|
|
|
Post by TheStranger on Oct 17, 2005 22:45:55 GMT -5
If you think I meant people born into that life, its not. I meant to limit population growth in the first place, rather than having to worry about non voulantary euthanasia. Woah, either i'm reading way off base, or you completely misunderstood where I was coming from. I dont think the babies(non voluntary) should be euthanised. People like those you alluded to, as in, who was in a "vegetative state" as you put it. Sorry for being unclear.
|
|
mastab
Gallant
Orgasmic Flooding
Free hugs!
Posts: 2,781
|
Post by mastab on Oct 17, 2005 22:49:34 GMT -5
If you think I meant people born into that life, its not. I meant to limit population growth in the first place, rather than having to worry about non voulantary euthanasia. Limit growth? That's what China did, and see how much their citizens are liking it?
|
|
|
Post by thaddius on Oct 17, 2005 22:50:41 GMT -5
I meant to limit population growth in the first place, rather than having to worry about non voulantary euthanasia. Woah, either i'm reading way off base, or you completely misunderstood where I was coming from. I dont think the babies(non voluntary) should be euthanised. People like those you alluded to, as in, who was in a "vegetative state" as you put it. Sorry for being unclear. Yeah, I thought that wanting to euthanise healthy people was a little bit radical even for you... But it was a misunderstanding.
|
|
|
Post by TheStranger on Oct 17, 2005 23:23:38 GMT -5
Yeah, I thought that wanting to euthanise healthy people was a little bit radical even for you... But it was a misunderstanding. Even for me? Heh heh, Thanks ;D
|
|
|
Post by Bloodcast_Wench on Oct 18, 2005 6:59:37 GMT -5
Euthanasia?
Everyday little kiddo's die in Africa or somewhere else while we can help them. Why shouldn't we have the right to kill ourselves or a too old lady that doesn't have any will or ability to live without a machine or decent anti-disease-medicine?
|
|
|
Post by yawmwen on Oct 18, 2005 7:35:33 GMT -5
I meant to limit population growth in the first place, rather than having to worry about non voulantary euthanasia. Woah, either i'm reading way off base, or you completely misunderstood where I was coming from. I dont think the babies(non voluntary) should be euthanised. People like those you alluded to, as in, who was in a "vegetative state" as you put it. Sorry for being unclear. Vegetative state is different, although they need to have a written will.
|
|
|
Post by Bloodcast_Wench on Oct 18, 2005 9:16:45 GMT -5
Imagine this, a girl gets either raped or made pregnant by her boyfriend, she's 15 16 years old, still has to finish her school.
By accident she discovers she is pregnant, she tells her parents (imagine she isn't kicked out) that she's pregnant and together they conclude they do not have the money, time and ability to raise another child.
Then I think, it should be euthanized (or if it's too late for that, given up for adoption)
|
|
mastab
Gallant
Orgasmic Flooding
Free hugs!
Posts: 2,781
|
Post by mastab on Oct 18, 2005 9:55:15 GMT -5
Well, Bloody, that is usually an acception in most anti-abortion states. They say, "IF the mother's life is at risk or if the baby is a product of rape it may be aborted." So there would be no conflict about that. If she was, however fooling around with her boyfriend when it happened they probably wouldn't alow it. You see, the thing with abortions is that even if the government outlaws it there are still going to be back alley clinics and people using coat hangers. Those people will get sick or injured from using those methods, so the government might as well allow it- for the people who cant support childeren's sakes.
|
|
|
Post by TheStranger on Oct 18, 2005 10:28:05 GMT -5
Vegetative state is different, although they need to have a written will. If they are going to be in a vegetative state the rest of their lives they have to have a written will? I'm split on the middle of the road on this one. Like, I know the problem in hospitals is the lack of room for new patients. And my point was that as population rises, so will the amount of people in hospitals. These people arent necessarily the new born. Take the population of 6 billion. Now think of how many people frequent hospitals, without considering time basis. Now imagine if the population was double that. More people in hospitals, more strain on the staff, etc. If there is nothing that can be done for a person, like a person in a coma for a certail length of time - theres a time that is usual for how long they'd be in for, though I wont hazard a guess as to what that number is. Euthanisation is not essential now by any respect. Choosing what to do for ourselves is still a right. And I think that the government has no right to stand in our way at all. How could they?
|
|