$1,000,000 baby, too taboo social issue?

[vidcc]

Anyone that doesn't know the issue of the film and is groing to see it stop reading now so that it's not "spoilt" for you.





Ok for those that know what the film is about.


Much has been said about this movie because of what occurs in it and to a degree the occurance has caused a deal of almost outrage among certain parts of our society. they suggest that the film is promoting euthanasia and shouldn't be shown.
Should we remove such issues in movies because it makes us feel uncomfortable and why pick on this subject when literally millions of on screen killings have been shown without protest. Why is this taboo when it's ok to show other killings?
Is the movie industry really a lifestyle lobby that is trying to make us behave how they want us to, or is it a reflection of what we are.

I've seen the argument that the trailers didn't advertise the film accurately, well what movie trailer ever has?

I believe that the outrage has very little to do with the subject matter and more to do with the choice that was made regarding the subject. A different choice and the movie would be hailed as a fine commentary on social values

[{I}{K}{E}]

they suggest that the film is promoting euthanasia and shouldn't be shown.


This is the same in my opinion as saying 'Kids should not watch Spongebob because he is gay'.

[Busyman]

Yet these same folk are not outraged about outright murder in movies.

I say don't give these dipshits a platform to speak on regarding the movie.

They need some

:01: :angry: STFU!!!! and GTFO!!!! :angry: :01:


:dry:

[j2k4]

I haven't seen the movie; I'm sure I will over time.

As to using cinema as a medium for presenting controversial viewpoints, I don't see that much can be done to ensure fairness, nor do I think a "fair" presentation will be "fair enough" for anyone with a strong opinion on any of the several sides of a given issue.

It is somewhat like our various forms of democratic government-imperfect, but better than the alternatives.

Michael Moore's efforts were seen by some as just a bit tainted, ideologically, but eventually his movie was countered by another.

It all may be a bit messy, financially as well as stylistically, but it ends up working.

Euthanasia is an issue which has simmered for years; moving it to the front burner is for the good, I would think.

Let's see if it is allowed to become what it should be: A state's rights issue.

[Biggles]

I recall a rather moving play some years called "Whose life is it anyway?" which dealt with many of these issues.

It is still a difficult subject though. It is very hard to argue for euthanasia on behalf of someone else but it is possible to argue eloquently for it on one's own behalf.

Compulsory euthanasia is, imho, a contradiction of terms. The grey area is where the infirm and elderly elect to go voluntarily because of social pressure to do so.

The ungrey area is where someone is clearly dying of a painful disease and they would like the opportunity to die with dignity and comfort surrounded by those who love them.

[vidcc]

Let's see if it is allowed to become what it should be: A state's rights issue.
I'm hoping this will stay a little longer on the point of if we should be stopping such films being shown...(you did answer that) instead of getting into a debate about euthanasia itself, although I am expecting it to go in that direction.
I just want to counter your belief that it should be a "state's rights issue" . I couldn't disagree any stronger. It should be entirely a personal rights issue. No matter where one finds oneself residing

[Busyman]

I'm hoping this will stay a little longer on the point of if we should be stopping such films being shown...(you did answer that) instead of getting into a debate about euthanasia itself, although I am expecting it to go in that direction.
I just want to counter your belief that it should be a "state's rights issue" . I couldn't disagree any stronger. It should be entirely a personal rights issue. No matter where one finds oneself residing
Whether or not the film should be shown is pretty much a dumb issue raised loudly by some groups (probably conservative).

Suicide goes against my personal religious beliefs but I see know reason to stop a person who is dying a slow horrible death from killing themselves. We could try and talk them out of it but their suicide is their choice.

Anyone killing another directly needs jail time so that definition of euthanasia I disagree with. Pulling the plug on someone that's brain dead is another matter.

Dr. Death's method is ok with me. He gives you the means to kill yourself but I only am ok with this for terminally ill patients and not "old" people.

[j2k4]

I just want to counter your belief that it should be a "state's rights issue" . I couldn't disagree any stronger. It should be entirely a personal rights issue. No matter where one finds oneself residing

I guess then my point would be that, although there are myriad ways to exercise the personal option of taking one's life, the fulcrum is balanced upon the issue of the individual whose condition precludes personal action, and requires "help" to end his/her life, and so the situation dictates a felt need for legal protection to be conferred upon those who feel the call to provide this, um....service.

In the name of freedom, the ability of individual states to define themselves as legal sanctuaries for things such as euthanasia (and likewise abortion, the death penalty, etc.) should not be curtailed.

To deny the denizens of any state the opportunity to determine the social climate of their particular milieu is unconstitutional.




I now return you to vid's thread and the topic at hand. ;)

[Busyman]

I guess then my point would be that, although there are myriad ways to exercise the personal option of taking one's life, the fulcrum is balanced upon the issue of the individual whose condition precludes personal action, and requires "help" to end his/her life, and so the situation dictates a felt need for legal protection to be conferred upon those who feel the call to provide this, um....service.

In the name of freedom, the ability of individual states to define themselves as legal sanctuaries for things such as euthanasia (and likewise abortion, the death penalty, etc.) should not be curtailed.

To deny the denizens of any state the opportunity to determine the social climate of their particular milieu is unconstitutional.




I now return you to vid's thread and the topic at hand. ;)
What "help" do you refer to?

If it equates to one handing a knife to someone who wants to commit suicide then I see nothing wrong with that. If it equates to one literally helping the person plunge the knife into their chest then that's what I take issue with.

Logic.

[vidcc]

What "help" do you refer to?

If it equates to one handing a knife to someone who wants to commit suicide then I see nothing wrong with that. If it equates to one literally helping the person plunge the knife into their chest then that's what I take issue with.

Logic.
I see the reasoning behind your view, however just one example. what if the person was suffering and was mentally sound and chose to end it all, but physically unable?

[Busyman]

I see the reasoning behind your view, however just one example. what if the person was suffering and was mentally sound and chose to end it all, but physically unable?
Then they're SOL.

Can they move their mouth? Can they talk? If so then they are physically able.

[vidcc]

Then they're SOL.

Can they move their mouth? Can they talk? If so then they are physically able.

SOL ????

can talk and make coherant choices but physically unable to move, not even to put an overdose in their own mouth. Has to be fed by a tube.

would you consider someone that fed the pills to that person to be going beyond the "giving them the means"

[Busyman]

SOL ????

can talk and make coherant choices but physically unable to move, not even to put an overdose in their own mouth. Has to be fed by a tube.

would you consider someone that fed the pills to that person to be going beyond the "giving them the means"
Absolutely.

Will you come back with "...but they have to swallow it"?

[vidcc]

Absolutely.

Will you come back with "...but they have to swallow it"?

no they are fed by a tube.

I am asking this because you are ok with providing the means but not the action, I.E. handing the knife but not pushing it in.
But to me that means that one has to be not only mentally capable but physically as well.
I believe that one needs to be mentally capable to make the choice with assisted suicide. Without this part it is murder on the part of the assistant.

Why should it only be the mobile that can end their suffering if they so wish?

[Busyman]

no they are fed by a tube.

I am asking this because you are ok with providing the means but not the action, I.E. handing the knife but not pushing it in.
But to me that means that one has to be not only mentally capable but physically as well.
I believe that one needs to be mentally capable to make the choice with assisted suicide. Without this part it is murder on the part of the assistant.

Why should it only be the mobile that can end their suffering if they so wish?
Oh a tube. You did say that. I was thinking Christopher Reeve.

The middle 3 sentences we agree on but you knew that.

Regarding the last sentence...

I say they are SOL because if one isn't in some way mobile (even moving their mouth)....then how do they kill themselves? :blink:

I don't even look at my method as assisted suicide.

The suicidal person will have to do ALL the work.

[sparsely]

it's just a movie...it's called teh "entertainment" industry for a reason...geeze, people take shit too seriously.
a year from now, hardly anyone will remember this movie, and move on to the next crap to protest.
people that bitch about such insignificant stuff shouldn't even be given media attention, which is all they want.
whores.

anyway, on youth-in-asia, drug use, abortion, whatever...a person should be free to do with their own body whatever they choose to do, so long as it doens't endanger anyone else.

just don't let your fucking corpse be blocking my driveway.

[vidcc]

just don't let your fucking corpse be blocking my driveway.

but after cremation the ashes can stop you slipping over in the snow or ice

[j2k4]

What "help" do you refer to?

If it equates to one handing a knife to someone who wants to commit suicide then I see nothing wrong with that. If it equates to one literally helping the person plunge the knife into their chest then that's what I take issue with.

Logic.

I refer to the latter example, which, logically speaking, you might have deduced, had you not been so intent on picking nits.

This stems from the Kevorkian era, when it seemed we were about to begin conferring medical degrees upon those who wished to "help people die with dignity".

[Busyman]

I refer to the latter example, which, logically speaking, you might have deduced, had you not been so intent on picking nits.

This stems from the Kevorkian era, when it seemed we were about to begin conferring medical degrees upon those who wished to "help people die with dignity".
Picking nits?!!

Nit picking is the difference between murder and suicide, fella.

Read it again.

I don't know about this "die with dignity" shit. So what now, if you die of cancer, you have no dignity but if you shoot yourself in the head whilst having cancer, you are all of a sudden dignified?

[j2k4]

I guess then my point would be that, although there are myriad ways to exercise the personal option of taking one's life, the fulcrum is balanced upon the issue of the individual whose condition precludes personal action, and requires "help" to end his/her life, and so the situation dictates a felt need for legal protection to be conferred upon those who feel the call to provide this, um....service.

In the name of freedom, the ability of individual states to define themselves as legal sanctuaries for things such as euthanasia (and likewise abortion, the death penalty, etc.) should not be curtailed.

B-

Please re-read this; it should reveal my note of the particular circumstance which concerns you, specifically that if a body has the ability to end his/her life, they need not answer to any authority as to their actions.

The sticking point is, as we have both noted, the candidate for whom action is impossible, due to disability.

It is at this point that the "helpful" third party attempts to present his/her services, and, in so doing, asks for legal sanctuary in order to operate freely.

Neither of us are excited by this eventuality, and, for your further edification, I will note here that my use of the term "death with dignity" was meant to be an ironic appropriation of the rhetoric that I abhor.

In any future readings of my posting, please remember to attenuate your own cynicism so as to not overlook mine?