Do you side with euthanasia?

[BVG]

If I'm terminal with cancer...no... I don't want to slowly starve to death as my body consumes itself. I wanna die on my own terms

Yes I support it.

 

[Squarechoke]

Yeah, how hypocritical of people to oppose murder while approving of self defense.

You're a special snowflake, aren't you. No surprise that you're a Swede.

Someone walking in on your property isn't something you need to defend yourself against at all, let alone with lethal violence. Even if you're a knee-shaking, hand-trembling coward.

Your little attempts at insults are pretty funny by the way.

 

[Squarechoke]

You don't know what euthanasia is.

It is not suicide.

Yes I do. It's for example legal in the Netherlands with the definition that it's the termination of a patient's life done by a doctor at said patient's request.

You really should try to speak about things you know about. It would go so much better for you.

 

[dontsnitch]

Someone walking in on your property isn't something you need to defend yourself against at all, let alone with lethal violence. Even if you're a knee-shaking, hand-trembling coward.

Your little attempts at insults are pretty funny by the way.

It's an error to equivocate abortion with shooting an intruder.

 

[Horse Style]

We must ask ourselves though, whether we are truly at such a pathetic stage that we have to ask for the state for its permissions to put a loved one out of their misery. If one of my family has reached such a point that there is nothing left but pain, without the ability to end it, I'll pull the trigger myself, and suffer whatever meager consequences come off it as a result. So did all of my ancestors before me, and so will I.

I agree, we shouldn't have to go get permission to put a loved one out of their misery. It's even worse when you think about how long each minute must feel to the person suffering as they are suffering in pain.

We also shouldn't have to face punishment to help that loved one out.

 

[Squarechoke]

It's an error to equivocate abortion with shooting an intruder.

I don't. I see killing a human being as different from removing an embryo, which is part of the point.

 

[dontsnitch]

I don't. I see killing a human being as different from removing an embryo, which is part of the point.

Of course it's different, since they are different actions.

You said it was hypocritical to accept one and not the other, an this type of moral equivocation is an error.

 

[TheGreatA]

I agree, we shouldn't have to go get permission to put a loved one out of their misery. It's even worse when you think about how long each minute must feel to the person suffering as they are suffering in pain.

We also shouldn't have to face punishment to help that loved one out.

Ideally, we should not, but in practise, the state probably does need to punish it in some form or fashion to avoid any abuses. We all know there are plenty of "family and friends" who would be willing to hasten the demise of an elderly person, so that they can get their hands on the inheritance.

The state cannot operate in a way which expects all of its citizens to act morally. Thus, if I end up getting punished for what in my eyes is a morally good act, then it is what it is. I'll do the time and go on living.

 

[Staph infection]

Whatever they want. It should be there right to do as they please in a situation like this. Quality of life is very subjective.

 

[Horse Style]

Ideally, we should not, but in practise, the state probably does need to punish it in some form or fashion to avoid any abuses. We all know there are plenty of "family and friends" who would be willing to hasten the demise of an elderly person, so that they can get their hands on the inheritance.

The state cannot operate in a way which expects all of its citizens to act morally. Thus, if I end up getting punished for what in my eyes is a morally good act, then it is what it is. I'll do the time and go on living.

There would need to be steps taken before hand to cover the ass of the person assisting. Some sort of proof that the sickly person is giving consent and all that.

If punishment for helping someone meant trying me like some depraved murderer then I'd have to decline help. I'd love to help but not if I'm facing 15+ years in prison

 

[Squarechoke]

Of course it's different, since they are different actions.

You said it was hypocritical to accept one and not the other, an this type of moral equivocation is an error.

No, if you say that you are 100% pro life and think it's fine to kill for something so trivial as to walk onto your property then that's hypocritical to me. Killing another human is also a bigger deal than removing an embryo out of your own body to me (and to most of the world, given how the nations have set up their laws).

 

[Sampsonsimpson]

Depends on whose bein' euthanized.

 

[Bald1]

Having autonomy over your own body should be the most basic right there is. So yeah, I'm fully in support, but there should be some type of counseling or assessment procedure involved in all but the most obvious cases.

 

[Thurisaz]

I guess you didn't know euthanasia is also known as "assisted suicide"

Yes, it's supposed to be "suicide by proxy". The problem with that is that the "proxy" is a morally responsible individual and not a tool. You can suicide with pills and you can suicide with a gun. You can't suicide with a human being. Aggressively killing anyone makes the other guy a murderer.

 

[Thurisaz]

Someone walking in on your property isn't something you need to defend yourself against at all, let alone with lethal violence.

So, how's life when all you can do is reductio ad absurdum?

 

[kickboxjh]

I'm all for it, but some conditions;

Only for those that can afford it, I don't want to be paying for it.

You would have to qualify, ie. Have settled all debt.

You would have to be mentally stable.

You would need to be terminally ill, or in chronic pain (physical pain, in case I have to state the obvious)

 

[Squarechoke]

So, how's life when all you can do is reductio ad absurdum?

Better than if I were to talk about things I knew nothing about like you.

 

[Horse Style]

Yes, it's supposed to be "suicide by proxy". The problem with that is that the "proxy" is a morally responsible individual and not a tool. You can suicide with pills and you can suicide with a gun. You can't suicide with a human being. Aggressively killing anyone makes the other guy a murderer.

You CAN suicide by human being whether you want to accept the meaning of the word or not.

 

[irish_thug]

It really does depend on the circumstances for me. I'm not a big fan of state funded suicide, but I'm also not a fan of forcing people to suffer with no chance of a cure. So yes, but not always.

 

[Thurisaz]

You CAN suicide by human being whether you want to accept the meaning of the word or not.

One could make a reasonable case for that by attacking the other with the intent of getting killed, but other than that I can't imagine that happening. You got another example?