I'm pro choice and eveything, but this is appalling
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041130/D86MD4DG1.html
I'm pro choice and eveything, but this is appalling
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041130/D86MD4DG1.html
So....the Netherlands are the first nation to permit euthanasia? Hmm....what is that saying....."those that forget he past are doomed to repeat it"...is that the one?
I am pro choice if a consenting adult suffering chooses to end it all but is unable to do so. I see no problem if all the needed safeguards are in place for assisted suicide.
I don't know the criteria for infant euthanasia, however i do have a problem with it. We can make the infant comfortable so it is not suffering i believe, so i am wondering why it is needed. There is a big difference between not prolonging the inevitable and speeding the inevitable along.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Im fully in favour of Euthanasia on those that can decide for themselves.
I have grave reservations about the same for those that cant, unless they made a decision before they reached that condition.
Newborns obvously cant make a decision for themselves. I therefore have real problems with this...
Last edited by Rat Faced; 11-30-2004 at 10:26 PM.
An It Harm None, Do What You Will
Surely you could supply your own criteria, vid?Originally Posted by vidcc
Please don't tell me you'd google that, too.
Sheesh.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
I have reservations about this also. I do not believe, however, that the handful of cases that have occurred in The Netherlands have been immoral. I am sure that those parents that have made this decision have done so after much soul searching and in both love for their child and with a mind to the pain and forthcoming death of their child.
However, the ability to make this decision on the behalf of others is fraught with danger. Whilst I appreciate that the current situation in The Netherlands requires a number of triggers, including legal, medical and parental permissions, one must be mindful that best interests are a moveable feast and there is always a danger that Nazi like policies of racial purity are never further than a step away. A C S Lewis quote I am fond of is "She lived for others, you could tell the others by their haunted expressions" is relevant here - beware of others that consider they have your best interests at heart.
Nevertheless, I am not "anti-the right to decide" the time of ones own death when faced with a tedious and unnecessarily painful death. Long goodbyes have never been something I have found useful.
Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum
why would i "google" that? ..."too" ??????Originally Posted by j2k4
What is it with you and google?
I don't know what their criteria would be, it certainly would be different from what others would think acceptable.
If you read my post i am against it as i feel we can make it so they are not in pain.
I do however make the point that it is different from not treating something that can't be cured and thereby not prolonging life.
Last edited by vidcc; 12-03-2004 at 03:11 AM.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
My point is that, as you are not a stupid person, you are fully capable of forming a complete and all-purpose criteria all by your little-old-self that you can apply to such doings.
None of this In different cultures, or, In different countries crap;
If you can justify an application of morality in one instance or locale your construct ought to be comprehensive enough to use in all cases.
To look at it any other way would be positively...um...senatorial.
Opportunities abound for the use of situational reasoning; I don't think this is one of them.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Morality is not a Universal, it changes and is subjective. What is Moral in one place may not be elsewhere by the mores of another tribe.Originally Posted by j2k4
You must rub blue mud into your belly button when those around you do.
An It Harm None, Do What You Will
well j2 rat gets up earlier than I due to time zones but he is right on the spot of what I would say, morals are not universal. You just have to look at the debate here about abortion.... certainly there is no "universally acceptable" criteria just within the USA for that. Stem cell research is another.
There are a whole rage of instances where tough life destroying decisions have to be made...conjoined twins sharing organs for example where a separation operation has to be performed or both will die. But as to this thread subject I cannot think of any cases that could justify it, by my criteria...perhaps you can by your own.
Last edited by vidcc; 12-03-2004 at 03:05 PM.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Bookmarks