Euthanasia (or mercy killing)...with it, or against it? And for those who don't know what it means, here's the definition:

Euthanasia: (from dictionary.com) The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.

Or my definition-A quiet, painless death, to end somebody's suffering, so they won't be in pain anymore.


Personally, I really believe it depends on the situation. We shouldn't throw away our lives, we should give people the chance to fight it.

...But if the person has lived a full life, or are pretty old, it wouldn't be as bad. I'm really against killing somebody.

...Then again....nobody wants to suffer.....I have a mixed opinion on this. :(

Your thoughts?

We had to pull the plug on one of my grandmas, she was suffering from an illness (don't remember which :unsure:) There were times when she was alright, but then things just went horrbly wrong and she was in so much pain, she started to have organ failure and she kept getting worse, so we just stop her suffering and cut her life support. She was really old.


I'm all for it, if the person is suffering and has no chance of getting better, then don't allow it to continue, so inhuman. If a person doesn't want to live with an illness or an incurable condition, then they shouldn't have to, its there choice, and there life.

It's wrong to kill yourself, or decide on someone else's life is worth living. It's murder to yourself or others. Sounds harsh, I know.

I'm sorry to hear about your grandmother, Xemnas. When my grandmother died of cancer (she smoked) at age 57, we prayed that she get better, or the pain would pass away, and her death would be painless. We talked to her about Jesus, and to this day we don't know if she recieved Christ as her Saviour. I will never know 'til I reach Heaven.

I think it's duty to try and keep your friends, relatives, and even strangers alive, because they may never know the Gospel. They should be given the chance at least once to know Christ.

Does "Yes" mean against or with?

Ermmm...I guess 'yes' means you're with it. No is you're against.

....I so totally screwed up this poll...>_<

Yeah, I thought "Yes" means for and "no" means against...at least that's what I thought when I cast my vote (which was yes, btw).

It can be very difficult if you have to decide when someone's in a coma, if that's the situation, but if the person in question is awake and aware, and clearly in their right mind, then their choices should be respected. I don't see how it can be called "murder" if the "victim" is begging for it to be done. If someone is in pain, suffering from a degenerative physical or mental disease and suffering because of it then it's inhumane to keep them alive against their wishes - they should be released from their suffering and allowed to die with dignity.

I bolded part of that sentence because that's the part I agree with - we can't decide if someone else's life is worth living or not, which is why I'd find the choice whether or not to pull the plug on a comatose loved one very difficult. However, if that person is conscious and mentally sound, the same rule applies - we can't decide if their life is worth living or not, which is why we should trust the judgement of the person who is suffering and asking for a merciful death. Of course, I'd rather a loved one choose to live and fight but because I'm not in any physical pain right now, it's very easy for me to say something like that. If someone is in pain and only waiting to die, and asking to be given a peaceful death which they are in control of, then it seems very cruel to me to refuse them that.

I voted "yes", thinking that that that meant, "Yes, I'm against it".

I mean to put no. :blush:

It's a difficult choice, but God says in Exodus, "Thou shalt not murder", I guess it wouldn't be right to let someone die. Prayer is powerful, like I said. ^_^ I'm glad you agree with me in this part, Hyper. :huggle:

I think it's duty to try and keep your friends, relatives, and even strangers alive, because they may never know the Gospel. They should be given the chance at least once to know Christ.


So it's perfectly ok for me to live with a debilatating illness? which makes me inable to do anything? Who are we to decide whether people should live or not?

Stay out of their business, it has nothing to do with you.

I would not want to live, being surrounded by people wasting their time caring for someone who does not have a life of their own. God, do you think I would enjoy the suffering?

If someone wants to die a dignified death, let them die.

Cut the God stuff seriously. Think with your own head. Would you really want someone to suffer?

Like with that Terry Schiavo. The husband cared for her for so long, and when she showed no sign of recovery, he tried to do the right thing and call to end her life, but no - her parents had to step in and spout nonsense. Sure, it's hard to let go of their child, but there was nothing going for her - the other christians were spouting about how wrong it was to end her life, but I bet they didnt really give two shits about Terry. It was a chance to make themselves look good. However, starving poor Terry was cruel - they should have ended her life painfully.

According to friends, she made a living will to be euthanised if she was in this situation - her parents didnt listen to that did they?

Why is it that most anti-euthanising people including the whole God arguement?

There are times when you have to think - should we let someone suffer like this, or let them have a dignified death.

Sorry for ranting, but I feel very strongly about this.
..

Have I written total bullshit? :'(

I chose "yes" (i.e. for euthanasia).

But I don't rag on people who cling to the smallest hope that their loved one will wake up someday. I think it's easier to say "I'm willing to let myself go" than ending someone else's life.

For me, I'm quite set about this-- if there's little chance for me to do anything else with my life other than lie in a bed all day, then I want to end it. Assuming I'm even able to think rationally in that condition, I'd probably be thinking about all the money my hospital stay is soaking up-- money that could maybe go to my parents, or my younger brother.

But that's if I end up in that sort of situation.

When it comes to ending someone else's life, though, I think even the smallest chance of survival is able to stop a person from pulling the plug.

Yes, I am for euthanasia.

You effectively own your life and the arrangements made with it. Allowing yourself to die, or actively killing yourself due to terminal illness is your decision, and yours alone, to make. However if this were to be made legal certain steps would have to be put into place, such as ensuring that before the act was made all arrangements had been made by the soon to be deceased in order not to unduly disadvantage another in anyway. In my opinion legalisation is a moot point. If you don't like the idea of euthanasia and consider it against God's wishes then don't practise it. This does not give you power over others however and so legalisation should not be a question. It's the equivalent, IMO, of me trying to get door to door Christians/Jehovah's Witnesses etc banned and the practice made illegal.

As for turning off someone's life support. It really does depend on the situation. There are times where the person has the smallest of smallest possibilities of surviving and every minute that person continues to live they drain money and resources from others living. That is a rather cold way of putting it, but in certain situations it certainly seems to be the more logical or rational action. An old school acquaintance just recently got bashed in a pub carpark near my home. He was on life support for 3 days before his parents decided to let him die. This is a situation where this is applicable.

Oh, and there is a difference between actively killing someone and allowing them to die in this case. They cannot live without the life support, taking that away does kill them but it is not killing them if you understand my tense.

I think that's very sad, and I feel a little coldness coming from you. First of all, I won't practise it, thankyou very much, and as for getting 'Christians/Jehovahs Witnesses, etc' banned... no matter what you think and say, I still respect your opinion, no matter how much I disagree with that.

I understand what you mean. It's very hard for me to understand, but under the circumstances, and from what God tells me and others in the Bible, you're not to murder someone or yourself.

Though you may not see it is murder, you are letting them die willfully, ie. cutting off their life support, etc. Even if their life is hanging by a thread, it is not your decision to decide when someone dies. It's not my decision when I die. I leave my whole life in the Hands of God.

You will notice that this is a debate, we are not actually deciding someone else's life here. However, if I was put in that situation, I would never consider euthanasia.

Physical pain is nothing to the spiritual pain they could suffer if they die not knowing God. And I love God. He rules everything in my life.

Englishrose

First of all, I won't practise it, thankyou very much, and as for getting 'Christians/Jehovahs Witnesses, etc' banned... no matter what you think and say, I still respect your opinion, no matter how much I disagree with that.

Excellent! You've perhaps seen my point. Firstly let me clarify that I said door knockers and not the religions themselves banned (this isn't Soviet Russia) and this is important, please don't misclarify my arguments. You disagree with me. Not a problem. I disagree with you on euthanasia. Not a problem. Now we come to the next hurdle.

I abhor door knockers. Now I want them banned, they should not be allowed to harass me in my home. I want them banned. What do you think? Should legislation be passed so that you can't come knocking on my door unknown for religous purposes? I assume you disagree that this law should be passed? You believe that they are conducting a worthwhile practice and moreover that if I don't like it I can refuse them?

If so then you should be following the same reasoning or euthanasia. You don't like euthanasia? Don't practise it. But don't stop me from committing an act that I consider worthwhile. See how it all follows?

Though you may not see it is murder, you are letting them die willfully, ie. cutting off their life support, etc. Even if their life is hanging by a thread, it is not your decision to decide when someone dies. It's not my decision when I die. I leave my whole life in the Hands of God.

There is one glaring fallacy in this argument. One major, sparkling flaw. You are applying your argument and your standard for an entire population. However your argument is reliant upon the conditonal that God exists. To reclarify your argument it should be written as "If God exists then murder is wrong", rather than "God exists, therefore murder is wrong". See the difference? Now I'm not saying I affirm murder, but rather that your argument is only applicable for people that believe in God. Only for those people that can turn the conditional into the argument, and you'll notice that that does not apply to a large number of people. It is answered for you and thus you can make the assertion above in relation to other people that have also clarified that conditional. However for all those that have not accepted that argument as anything but a conditional, well they do not have to ascribe to the purposes it puts forward.

Thus, for some they do have the decision for when a loved one dies, and more importantly, they have that decision on reasonable and rational terms.

er... euthanasia...

from what i remember, there are two kinds of euthanasia... direct and indirect..

direct euthanasia is killing the person because he asked you to, when he's not yet supposed to die naturally.. something like that... direct euthanasia is baaad... because that would be murder...

whereas indirect euthanasia is allowing death to take it's natural course.. like when someone is supposed to be dead but is only kept alive by life support... in that case, euthanasia is perfectly okay...

it doesn't matter if they're rich or poor or whatever, as long as it's indirect euthanasia...

i think...

that's what i believe in, anyway..

but hey, there can be miracles.. ^_^

I thought this was all on a matter of opinion. And anyway, you opinion is on the conditional that God doesn't exist. :lol:

Englishrose

I thought this was all on a matter of opinion. And anyway, you opinion is on the conditional that God doesn't exist.

*shakes head* Please, someone kill me. You're not actually typing that as an argument are you?

I never thought you'd stoop so low Englishrose.

As I stated in the other topic opinions can be better argued. In the case of this forum, for example, your opinions are poorly argued via the terms and basis of argument. See my link to the logical fallacies in the other topic. So while it is a matter of opinion, some opinions are better than others.

My opinion is not on the conditional that God does not exist as my opinion does not require His existence to be valid. My opinion simply states that one should be able to do as they wish, and not be governed by rules laid down by Christians. I'm not Christian, I don't care for your systems of beliefs and restrictions on my freedom. Namely, in this case, to kill myself. You however are making the argument that Euthanasia is inherently wrong and should never be allowed. Your basis for this is that God says it is wrong. Your basis for that is that God exists.

See the problem? My argument's premises are statements. Regardless of their validity, containing fallacies or not, they still apply within the terms of a valid argument. Your statement completely relies upon using a conditional as a premise. You can't do that as a conditional doesn't assert anything to be true and thus doesn't prove anything. So no Englishrose, you are not clever or correct. You're simply dodging almost every main point of my argument (I presume because you realise I'm right) and try to throw back conditionals in my face. Conditionals I have not used and will not.


Come back to this debate once you understand these things a little better.

Personally i'd LOVE to "go" this way. It's ideal,one shot your dead. Sound sadistic? but it's so much better than suffering,much better than dieing slowly. They do this to animals,why not people if they CONSENT IT.