Home - List All Discussions

Your stance on: Abortion, Euthanasia, death penalty

What is your position?

by: RePit

These forums are mostly about abortion. I am curious to know what you guys think about these other issues. Input is welcome from everyone.

Euthanasia, suicide, assisted suicide and the death penalty.

If you think your position may be construed as being inconsistant, perhaps you could include a line or two as to why you don't think it inconsistant.

As for me, I am pro for all. Except perhaps death penalty - which I support in theory, but in practice do not think our (Australia or the US) justice system is fool-proof enough. Eg. rogue forensic scientists, defence lawyers who coerce confessions from poorer defendants, etc. As for the others - in a nutshell: quality of life over length/quantity.

So what do you think?

reply from: Alexandra

Anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, pro-death penalty.

To be the opposite means you don't value life. As I said in another thread, it's BECAUSE human life is valuable that we need the death penalty for murderers. People who would accuse me of playing God would do well to read Genesis 9:6.

Euthanasia, in reality, is not about some "right" to die. It's a way of getting rid of "useless eaters." Now my dad had been sick since 1971. He was in pain 24/7. He died in 2000. Now not an hour before he died, he told me and my husband that he didn't want to live like he was--but he didn't want to die, either!

I wonder if some terminally ill people are subtly pressured to "want" euthanasia so they won't be such a burden on everyone.

It's not about "quality" of life. It's not a factor. Those who say it is--why don't you just go into a major city, go to the slums, and kill all the poor people?

reply from: RePit

Does that mean you are pro-death penalty because it is better to execute a murderer so that they cannot murder anyone ever again? If so - does that mean you would make reservations for executing someone for crimes that do not endanger other peoples lives?

reply from: Allizdog2000

My Position

Euthanasia; Against it
This would be abused and innocent people do die from this.

Suicide; I am mixed. Undecided on that.
Because Suicide is a personal choice that terminates the life of that person. Unlike abortion in which it the abortion kills another human being. People commit suicide over the dumbest things, which there is no honor in it. Such as the case that was profiled on Oprah. A Woman committed suicide because she was depressed. I could understand if a Military General, made some bad tactical choice getting many of his men needlessly killed and did the honorable thing and committed suicide.

Assisted suicide; I am mixed. Undecided on that
I am for and against. If the person is in serious physical pain and terminally ill, assisting them to die may not be the wrong thing to do. Assisting them to a certain point but not crossing the line of encouraging or doing it for them.

Death Penality; Pro-Capital Punishments in cases such as Tookie Williams, Gacy, Bundy, Bin Laden, Hussien, among others. Run of the mill murders, were one loser kills another loser in a bar fight doesn't warrent the death penalty.

reply from: AshMarie88

I have the SAME exact view as you, Alex.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Against all of 'em. And abortion.

reply from: Mugen

I am opposed to the death penalty, abortion, and euthanasia. The last one seems appropriate under certain circumstances. But the chance of abuse is far too risky in my opinion.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

No! They stole the play-offs from the Chiefs!

reply from: Mugen

Well, the Chiefs did have their shot, if they would have won out the season . . . Like the Steelers did.

reply from: AshMarie88

That's why I'm for it only when there is enough evidence, 100%, to convict someone of murder.

reply from: scopia1982

I am against abortion , euthanasia and suicide in all circumstances. I am pro death penalty in cases of premedidated murder, murder of a child, elderly or disabled person , rapist and most of all child molesters. The 1st mentioned above would include all abortionists and those who work for them.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

I'm anti death penalty. I think it's a lot better if a prisoner just had a life sentence with no parole; that way s/he could change his/her heart possibly. However, as for people like Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, BTK and those like them, I don't think they'd ever change their heart for the better. As Rush Limbaugh says, we should make Saddam become a fetus again. Then maybe those bleeding hearts will change their mind and stop defending such a sick man.

I'm anti-euthanasia because sooner or later doctors and caretakers would abuse it, just like abortion was.

I don't like suicide either. Being surrounded by teens who threaten to kill themselves because their boyfriend or girlfriend broke up with them, or they are "fat". I think it's really unhonorable and pointless way to die. However, if a person gave up his/her life for someone else, then it is the most honorable way to die.

I'm against assisted suicide also. Mainly because that would be abused to. My aunt had cancer and was in terrible, yet she did not want to have herself killed for the sake of relief.

reply from: RePit

That's why I'm for it only when there is enough evidence, 100%, to convict someone of murder.

AshMarie and Alexandra: If you could be 100% sure someone wanted to be euthanised, would you be for it then?

reply from: AshMarie88

That's why I'm for it only when there is enough evidence, 100%, to convict someone of murder.

AshMarie and Alexandra: If you could be 100% sure someone wanted to be euthanised, would you be for it then?

I wouldn't, no. I would get some help for them.

reply from: RePit

I wouldn't, no. I would get some help for them.

Would you be willling to help the murderer on death row? Help him/her change his way?

reply from: AshMarie88

I wouldn't, no. I would get some help for them.

Would you be willling to help the murderer on death row? Help him/her change his way?

Most criminals don't change their ways...

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Well, there can always be a second Carla Fay Tucker (sp?). She murdered someone and yet later she converted to Christianity and became a good person. Even though later she was killed because she couldn't get off death row. I know not all people are like this, but I think it can happen.

reply from: Alexandra

I'm still against it. I would try to convince the person that their presence is very much wanted and needed, and I would try to find out just why they're wanting to die.

My dad tried to commit suicide once--remember, he had been sick for nearly 30 years. He had his gun to his head--I kid you not. Then he realized that my mother, sister, and I still needed him.

I'm not sure where I read this, but I heard that in places where suicide is a societal disgrace, the suicide rate is really low--I think in the Middle East. Don't quote me on this. I just remember hearing it somewhere. Maybe I should do a Google search.

reply from: Alexandra

I know this sounds heartless, but while I'm inclined to believe that Miss Tucker was converted, she still had to pay her debt to society. In this case, her payment was her life.

If she was indeed saved, she's in heaven now. Not really a bad deal when you think about it!

I've also heard that Bush, who was then governor of Texas, was mocking her by saying, "'Please don't kill me!'" He seemed to get his rocks off by executing people--now he just sends our men and women to die in Iraq. I'm for the death penalty, but I'm against people like Bush using it as a way to kill people and get away with it. That's like a parent who takes pleasure in punishing their child. You shouldn't *enjoy* it!

reply from: yoda

Some of them are, yes. And this one might tip you off by the name, right?

reply from: RePit

Some of them are, yes. And this one might tip you off by the name, right?

As far as I know - this forum is called "Pro-life america", not anti-abortion america.

Do the topics of euthanasia and death penalty not relate to being pro-life?

I know Yoda: this is where you pull out your little dictionary and tell me what pro-life means. Let me save you some trouble.

And here is a link that I am sure you are itching to post:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=pro-life

Maybe you would care to trot over to wikipedia for an alternative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Life

I have seen other threads on this forum about euthanasia - eg do a search on this site on Terry Shiavo and you will get a few hits - including hits from threads that were initiated by pro-lifers, and threads that http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=207&messid=2835&parentid=2702

If you have a problem with discussing euthanasia, suicide and the death penalty - you don't have to - just don't read the thread.

reply from: RePit

That is a good deal, assuming heaven exists.

Do aborted foetuses also go to heaven? Seems they would get just as good a deal.

reply from: Alexandra

That is a good deal, assuming heaven exists.

Do aborted foetuses also go to heaven? Seems they would get just as good a deal.

I don't have a stand on that one. I see what you're saying--and that's no excuse to kill the unborn.

Why don't I just go out and kill everyone I know is saved?

That's something to leave in God's hands. Oh, and before you try to apply that to the death penalty, let me refer you back to Genesis 9:6 where God commands that murderers be executed.

That one thief on the cross admitted that he deserved the punishment he was getting. He was also saved at the last minute, for Jesus told him that he would be with Him in Paradise.

reply from: RePit

Well I guess that answers the question on the first page that no one answered (it got lost in other responses). I was wondering if you see death penalty as punishment or to prevent them killing again. Punishment it is.

reply from: Alexandra

And it also ensures that they'll never kill again.

reply from: yoda

And the essential difference between those two would be..........??

No. See the definition YOU posted.

I would be a wealthy man if any of the online dictionaries I used were "my little dictionaries", but they are not. But I'm not surprised that you would derisively call them that, in an anti-academic tone. Nor does it surprise me that you would post other definitions that support my position and then ignore them as well. Some folks just hate dictionaries because they are unable to bend them to suit their purposes, so they prefer instead to post their personal opinions and call it "philosophy".

If I had a problem discussing such subjects, I wouldn't have done so in the past, would I? My response to your statement was in no way an objection to any discussion of any subject, as you have made it out to be. It was a response to your statement that "These forums are mostly about abortion", as if you did not understand why we mainly discussed abortion here. I was, and I remain dismayed that you don't seem to understand the concept of a dedicated forum, as if we were somehow trying to impose our desire to discuss abortion on the other posters here. If you can't grasp the obvious fact that this is a forum dedicated to abortion, that's not our problem.

reply from: RePit

Do you also support capital punishment for;

adultery: Lev.20:10
going to work on a Sunday: Ex.35:2
homosexuality: Lev.20:13
being raped and not screaming loud enough: Dt.22:23-24
worshipping another god: Ex.22:20
???

Or do you like to pick and choose what parts of the bible you take notice of.

reply from: Tam

Abortion: always against
Suicide: always against but don't think any legal penalty should be attached to attempted suicide
Death penalty: always against
Killing in self-defense: only if necessary to stop the attack
Euthanasia: always against an act taken intentionally to kill the person
however: NO ONE should be kept on a machine, drug, or subjected to any other course of treatment against his/her will, so if the patient asks that the life-support be turned off under certain circumstances, that request is to be honored absolutely. This includes the right to refuse food of any kind. This only applies when the patient's request is indisputable, not in cases where the person's wishes are contested or otherwise unclear.

Also--VERY important--I am 100% opposed to

-- hunting for fur, for meat, or for sport
-- raising and slaughtering animals for meat, leather, fur, etc.
-- animal testing of any kind

Basically, I oppose any initiation of force by anyone against anyone else, and "anyone" includes all humans and all animals.

reply from: PAMaverick

Agreed on your position on abortion etc. I mainly base my position on the fact that the mighty Creator of this universe has clearly revealed that He knows and identifies all humans before their formation in the womb (Jeremiah 1:1-5). To disrupt God's plan for a human being is an offense which we are incapable of comprehending, and when it is disrupted on a mass basis such as the United States' version of "holocaust" resulting in the destruction of over 46 million unborn children over a 33 year period, then we must realistically face the fact that God is going to ultimately make a response to these atrocities -- Nazi Germany didn't get away with the destruction of over 14 million human beings -- do we think we can escape? On death penalty -- I also agree with you -- the death penalty is supported again by what God has revealed, but problem in the U.S. is a perversion of the justice system and it has become unjust and unfair in far too many instances.

reply from: Tam

Hi Clayton, welcome to the forum

reply from: RePit

Wow, you must be busy!

Serious questions:
What do you think of people who eat animal meat or wear fur/leather?
Do you worry about hurting plants or insects?

reply from: Tam

Wow, you must be busy!

Serious questions:
What do you think of people who eat animal meat or wear fur/leather?

I think they are contributing to the slaughter of beings they consider less than human, but who are in fact our peers.

Edited to add: just like those who support abortion.

Hard to answer that as phrased. Basically, I believe that every species on the planet is evolving out of the consumption thoughtform or going extinct. I may not live to see the day when consumption of plants ceases on this planet, but I do hope to live to see the day when all consumption of flesh is a thing of the past. I don't think it's far in the future. Those who eat meat will be dying of nasty meat diseases such as Mad Cow Disease. Twenty or thirty years from now, I doubt any living creature on this planet will partake of flesh. Yes, I have reasons for believing these things, but this isn't the place to go into detail. Since you asked, however, I'll answer--because this is a subject easily as dear to my heart as the subject of the babies killed in abortions. In terms of my personal relationship with plants and insects, I am okay with how it is now, but I hope that eventually, I will be able to reduce or even eliminate actions I take which cause other lives to be taken, whether plant or insect.

Bottom line: it sounds loony even to say that animals are people, too. I go so far as to say plants are people, too. Every plant and every animal is quite capable of communicating with humans--it is we humans who are often incapable of understanding and responding. Since the mainstream decrees, "animals are mindless biomachines" most humans are more than willing to believe that, because not only does it seemingly relieve them of the responsibility to treat animals as their peers, it also allows them to continue to enslave, torture, and slaughter animals with what will pass for a clear conscience. But just one genuine conversation with an animal would have most people sobbing with remorse for what has been done to them at our hands.

Human people need to wake up and realize we are not only NOT the most enlightened species on this planet, we have been lousy neighbors and have wreaked utter havoc on its other inhabitants. If what I understand the animals to say is true, humans are in for some pretty intense karmic fallout because of eating meat and otherwise consuming and destroying the world. I am sure it is much easier to say, "I don't believe in karma!" and "Animals and plants can't talk, silly!" while eating a bacon cheeseburger and reading the newspaper--but what goes around, comes around, and apparently, meat eaters are really in for it. (If ANYTHING I just wrote rings true for anyone reading this, whoever you are--don't take my word for it. Ask an animal--any animal, but preferably a wild one.)

For the record, one of the reasons I became pro-life is to resolve the blatant hypocrisy of supporting abortion while opposing meat. I do care about humans as much as I care about animals. But, like unborn humans, animals can't speak (hey, for the record, unborn--and preverbal born--babies can also communicate, although they, too, are unable to speak aloud), so it is up to those of us who know what is going on to stand up for them. I'd rather contribute to the solution than the problem. Even if I don't have a great "solution" I'd rather oppose the problem than stand idly by while my brothers and sisters, human and otherwise, are treated as disposable pieces of property by arrogant, supposedly "civilized," adult humans.

Edited to add: The irony is, one can learn more from any unborn baby or any animal than from 99% of the "civilized" human world combined, if one only makes the effort.

reply from: dignitarian

Euthanasia is morally unethical. Assisted suicide is morally unethical. Suicide is simply immoral.

The death penalty is morally ethical only when employed as a matter of self defence.

The most thoughtful pro-life position must proscribe against the taking of ANY human life unless it must be done to prevent a greater harm.

I'm sorry RePit, but you will find no contradiction in reason here.

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: RePit

Loony? You got that right.

Fascinating nonetheless. Wish I could pick your brain more, but that would be going too far off topic I think.

This may surprise you, but I am not after contradictions, I am curious more than anything. If I pick someone for a contradiction it isn't that I want to pick a fight, it is because I am wondering if there is some other factor I have not thought of that maybe someone can shed light on.
Dig - is there a difference between "morally unethical" and "immoral"? I understand your rationalisation about protecting human life. Just wondering about you using different words - was that making a deliberate point?

reply from: dignitarian

RePit:

The word “ethics” typically refers to the practical application of moral values. We use the term “ethics” as needed to identify certain acts as moral or immoral. In the case of suicide, the very direct nature of the act itself renders any questions of practical application moot. Thus suicide would appear more simply to be just a question of morality and not so much about ethics.

Dig

reply from: laurissamarcotte

I think this is a really good board. Bump.

reply from: xnavy

i am prolife, against abortion, assisted suicide, death penalty,
i am against the death penalty because humans have been known to convict innocent people and send to jail.
i am against abortion , because unborn humans are a gift from the creator.

reply from: AshMarie88

How does everyone feel about killing rapists/murderers in self defense, or defense of someone else, like your child? If killing the person was the only way for you to stay alive?
I'm for it.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

I guess if I had a gun I would shoot them in the leg/arm/foot/hand first, and if that didn't stop them, kill them.

reply from: 1003

hrm... no. in the interest of consistency, pro-lifers cannot kill rapists. if, above all else, they value life, and rape is sex, and sex is intended to create life, then i think the consistent pro-life position is to not impede rape.

reply from: 1003

in the interest of consistency, pro-lifers CANNOT condone killing rapists. If they value life above everything else, and rapists force sex, and sex creates life, then you cannot kill the tool of life creation. that'd be like killing prostitutes.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

You're mixed up. Before a rape, there is no human life, therfore preventing rape doesn't kill anything.

reply from: 1003

what about during or after a rape? no... rapists must be a pro-lifer's wet-dream, before, during, or after the act. they're baby-making machines. and don't y'all just LOVE babies and HATE their murderous mommies?

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

It appears you are just here to have humorous fun laughing at your own witty one-liners. You are not here to seriously debate. You are just out for fun and to mock pro-life stereotypes. What's this Ubuntu you are on. You are not in the real world with real consequences.

reply from: 1003

Ubuntu is humanity toward others. Google it.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I agree with a caveat. I do believe in some societies a death penalty is possible. For example, I believe the Mohawk used in fairly. In America however, every day people are let off on DNA evidence -- most of them black men. We're to racist, classist, etc. for a death penalty. I wouldn't want one in a perfect society, but I don't think it's evil like euthanasia or abortion. In the Netherlands, euthanasia became legal, ad now the old are too afraid to get medical care because you can euthanize people against their will.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Funny, you'd think if I loved rape I wouldn't be saying hurting rapists is ok.

reply from: yoda

You're a complete idiot, and that's the only thing about you that is complete.
"Pro-Life" means opposed to the legal status of abortion, AND NOTHING MORE!

reply from: xnavy

i agree with yoda on 1003

reply from: 1003

i'm saying that to be opposed to rape and against abortion is inconsistent. you are free to contradict yourself, but it just weakens the rest of your arguments

reply from: Shiprahagain

Why? Do babies rape women?

reply from: Hereforareason

"in the interest of consistency, pro-lifers CANNOT condone killing rapists. If they value life above everything else, and rapists force sex, and sex creates life, then you cannot kill the tool of life creation. that'd be like killing prostitutes."
Listen up 1003, if you want to debate then read the post, (think it through please) respond intelligently and then LISTEN to what other people say and process it. If that is not your intention here then you are not open to debate and I will (along with others) ask you to leave. If you are here to get a laugh at the expense of 3,000 plus murders a day, you need seriouse help. Now, I'll respond to your post.
Okay let's draw some lines here.
Rape = sex = baby. While that equation is better than the following, it is not God's plan for human kind. It is perverted and evil.
Rape = sex = baby = murder.
sex before marriage=baby.
While that equation is better than the following, it is not God's plan for human kind. It is perverted and evil.
sex before marriage = baby = murder
marriage= sex= baby. This is God's plan. This is the right way, the way things were designed to be.
"you cannot kill the tool of life creation"
I"m not in the position of playing God and trying to create as much life as possible. I am here to save the life that is already in place. A rapist..... let's try another one shall we? Rape = death sentence = ...no more woman raped and killed by that man.
"that'd be like killing prostitutes.""
lol, hey, how does that link to anythin you just said? And, is that bad?
Amber

reply from: yoda

Both are acts of violence against an innocent human being.
Being opposed to both of them is perfectly consistent.

reply from: Hereforareason

"How does everyone feel about killing rapists/murderers in self defense, or defense of someone else, like your child? If killing the person was the only way for you to stay alive?
"
I've been thinking about that lately. Self defence, all for it, but....started thinking lately. If I was being attacked, just me no one else then if I killed that person, A they couldn't hurt anyone else, B they would go to the eternal lake of fire. If they were attacking someone else, or many people then by all means, I'd take them out. But, Jim Elliot anyone?
Amber

reply from: V

I personally think no life should be taken. Suicide is a little different because it is the persons choice, although silly. I do not beleive in euthenesia because I feel it is out of the persons hands, if they are ill they are usually not fully in control of their wishes. Death penalty I think should be enforced if it is 100% proven the right person has been found and if they have killed a child and would likey do it again. Abortion is the worst in my mind because a small innocent child that hasn't had a chance to experience life at all is brutally and painfully murded.

reply from: Tam

Both are acts of violence against an innocent human being.
Being opposed to both of them is perfectly consistent.
Exactly.

reply from: Tam

Hi V, welcome to the forum. I agree with you except for the death penalty, which I also oppose. Just wondering, how do you feel about animals? Are you by chance a vegetarian?

reply from: Shiprahagain

Tam, I really loved that post you had about how if we could just converse with animals, animal abuse would end. Unfortunately I'm still, somewhat, a meat eater. I can go a month without meat, but that's not my usual state. I do believe that not eating meat is our natural state as humans, because in my relig, Christianity, humans couldn't eat meat until after the flood, and that meat eating is the origin of much of our violence towards humans, disease, and lack of harmony in the natural world. However, since I have Biblical permission to eat meat, I like to eat organic meat so that I know the animal didn't suffer other than being killed.
If you're Christian, I highly recommend Randy Alcorn's book Heaven that talks about the spiritual nature of animals, what happens to them in the afterlife, etc. I also highly recommend the parts of the Koran with Solomon where he is given the gift of speaking to animals as a result of his wisdom. Also, in Islam, you can actually worship Allah and treat people kindly and go to Hell for animal abuse. The Bible is filled with verses about how animals are our teachers, can see angels, are aware of God, worship, and think. In fact, there's one part of the Bible where a donkey speaks, and the Bible doesn't say that God put words into her mouth, but that He only gave her the ability to speak her thoughts. I think being a Christian fundamentalist means being an animist and recognizing and respecting the spirit in everything, animals, plants, mountains, etc. I also think that while men do have dominion, or responsibility for animals, we should strive for the Muskogee concept of being in harmony with and not superior to different creatures. I really feel that if science returned to indigenous spirituality where cures come from spiritual growth uneccessary animal abuse of scientific research would end. I also believe that if we once more treasure flowers and fish and elephant and sycamores and lakes we will create a web of love and respect that will unite us with the unborn and prevents all sorts of violences -- war, circuses, child abuse, and abortion among them.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Ship, the second half of your post reminds me of Saint Anthony holding up the Holy Eucharist and the donkey bowed to it instead of eating the bails of hay after being starved for three days.

reply from: coco

I am for euthinasia is permissable i had watched my fiancee mother die of cancer for ten years and it was not a pretty sight it seem as if she was just in agony constantly and when she finally passed away it was a relief because she was no longer in pain and suffering. when you see a person go threw that struggle with no releif in sight you kind of wish that the pain and suffering would just end when when they do they are said but usually relived that thier is no more pain to be endured.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Coco, I watched my great-grandmother suffer during her last years, but she was also extremely meditative. We knew that though it looked like her body was suffering, her spirit had something more to work out with God before she died.
Did you know that euthanasia quickly becomes a way for others to decide to kill others against their will? In the Netherlands, old people are afraid to receive healthcare for fear of involuntary euthanasia.
Never just consider an act, consider the consequences.

reply from: Shiprahagain

One thing I really like about indigenous culture is their respectful hunting practices. For example, if you read The Wind is my Mother by Bear Heart or Roy Sesana's right livelihood award speech, you see how they really ask permission of animals before hunting. Perhaps, not coincidentally, the Muskogee (Bear Heart's people) are prolife. I'm not sure in the Bushmen (Sesana's people) are, but most African tribes are -- it's part of their respect for the living, the ancestors, and the descendants to come.

reply from: coco

euthinasia is not just handed out to anyone in the netherlands we spoke of this topic in biomedical ethics it is availiable just like abortion is avaliable in the u.s the person who WISHES to be euthinised must seek out the help.they must recieve psyco care and have their wishes on writing unless the law has changed within the past year. the only argument out of this besides the religion argument is that those who are coersed into doing this and another argument is should life insurence pay benifits to the families because most policies do not cover suicide

reply from: Shiprahagain

Your legal guardian or next of Kin very well can choose to have you euthanized. Besides, many people who wanted euthanasia and then lived say they are glad they didn't.

reply from: coco

no they cannot that is murder most dr would never do that prove it

reply from: Shiprahagain

http://www.pregnantpause.org/euth/whyin.htm

reply from: coco

http://www.minbuza.nl/default.asp?CMS_ITEM=MBZ413152

reply from: AshMarie88

Actually, they can. It's happened before, and it will continue to happen.

reply from: coco

This is a dutch state website not a prolife one did you not read #4??? They need a written or oral request from the patient not thier family

reply from: galen

suicide for the terminally ill should be a decision between a doctor and the patient ONLY>
mary

reply from: coco

totally agree with you galen

reply from: galen

Great!! go make a living will.
mary

reply from: coco

i cant dont have $$ for attourney fees and anyway its not legal in america

reply from: galen

ha ha that's what u think. it is legal and if you educate yourself it is free... A living will......that is.
Mary

reply from: coco

why is it the governments job to say to a terminally ill patenint he or she cannot kill themselves if thier is no chance of a cure. i had to watch someone die of cancer for ten years and a total of 13 she had cancer for 3 years before i known her and it was the most crulest form of punishment/tourment tier is chemo,radiation morphine pumps, constant wondering if this is going to be the last trip to the hospital before she dies, i wish she could pass on so she doesnt have to suffier, the anal suppositories, the vomiting the nassausness, the needles, the tubes down her throat, the o2 that she needed, the treach, etc.. It is heartbreaking to see and i cant imagine going threw all of it and if they have a will and it states that and when they are suffering and you ask them on on a minitue if tehy want to continue an they say "NO" then why let them

reply from: galen

I have no respect for a doctor that will not end a patients suffering if that is what they want. the term "snowing" comes to mind.
Mary

reply from: galen

snowing is when a physician uses morphine or dilaudid to ease the pain of a terminal illness, even though the doctor knows that the amounts of medication given will reduce respiration and keep the patient unconcious. eventually enough of the drug will accumulate in the patient's system that respritory failure occures. it is considered by many doctors a painless way to die.
Mary

reply from: coco

is if someone is on a respirator because they have lung cancer and their is no chance of getting better you would take them off the machine??

reply from: Shiprahagain

I think that only God can decide when to end someone's life. Once we give humans that responsibility, we degrade life.http://www.prolife.org.uk/about/keyeuthanasia.htm

reply from: coco

not everyone belives in god so what would you say if that person doesnt and he/she has cancer and he wants to die?

reply from: Shiprahagain

I'd make the non-theistic argument found on the above website. Involuntary euthanasia does happen in the Netherlands. http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/03/aug/17/05.html
Should euthanasia be legal if it causes the elderly to fear healthcare?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/background_briefings/euthanasia/331261.stm
http://www.euthanasia.com/holland99.html
The Hague -- Euthanasia in The Netherlands is "beyond effective control", according to a report which shows that one in five assisted suicides is without explicit consent.
British opponents of assisted suicide say that the figures are a warning of the dangers of decriminalising euthanasia, as Holland did in 1984. By 1995 cases of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Holland had risen to almost 3 per cent of all deaths.
Dr Peggy Norris, chairwoman of the anti-euthanasia group Alert, said: "We need to learn from the Dutch system that euthanasia cannot be controlled."
Clearly the Dutch aren't following their own laws, just showing that even when laws promise consent, people are still unwilling killed.

reply from: coco

find a weblink to a holland government website that says that a person that doesnt want euthanasia has to recieve one. That link was a anti euthanasia link so it is biased.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Obviously no gov't is going to document its own human rights abuses. The fact that the link is anti abortion doesn't mean that the Journal of Medical Ethics who did the research was biased.

reply from: coco

Under a law that took effect in 2002, euthanasia is restricted to terminal patients suffering unbearable pain with no hope of improvement, and who request to die when they are of sound mind. Each case is reviewed by a panel of medical experts.

reply from: coco

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=1019950&page=2

reply from: coco

4 Does a written directive have the same status as an oral request?
The Act recognises written directives (living wills) as well as oral requests as legitimate forms of request for euthanasia. The recognition of written directives is especially important where a doctor decides to comply with a request for euthanasia in circumstances where the patient is no longer able to express his wishes orally. In such circumstances, a written directive counts as a well-considered request for euthanasia, but its existence can never discharge the doctor from his duty to reach his own decision on the request in the light of the statutory due care criteria.
The doctor must normally give serious consideration to any written directive. The only exception is where he has reason to believe that the patient was not competent to make a reasonable appraisal of his own interests at the time when he signed it. In that case, the directive will not constitute a request for euthanasia within the meaning of the Act. It is important that the doctor and patient discuss the terms of the directive, if at all possible.
The statutory provision for written directives makes it possible for patients to indicate in advance that they wish their lives to be terminated if they eventually find themselves experiencing unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement, in circumstances which render them incapable of expressing their wishes personally. Since the Act applies only to termination of life on request, it follows that it is not applicable to patients who have made no advance directive and are unable to decide or express their wishes. The government will make additional statutory provision for this category of patients.

reply from: coco

http://www.minbuza.nl/default.asp?CMS_ITEM=MBZ413152

reply from: coco

acording to most people on this website it does doesnt america document the human rights abuse of abortion?? If it doesnt how would you know that most babies that are aborted are minority if that was not reported?

reply from: Shiprahagain

Clearly, as the above evidence shows, even when the law requires volunteerary euthanasia, involuntary euthanasia occurs.

reply from: coco

just like murder,abortions,drugs,stealing and everything else their are always going to those that break laws. those should suffer consequnces

reply from: galen

if a person has a reasonable relationship with the doctor who is treating them than the decision to end life should ONLY be up to the patient and the doctor. A living will can describe your wishes. It NEVER should be the right of anyone else to tell the doctor what they think the patient should or might want. That is why a living will is so important... there is no real question then of what the patient did or did not want.
mary

reply from: Shiprahagain

My fear with euthanasia, though, is that the living will concept didn't stop rampant involuntary euthanasia in the Netherlands, and given how anti-life our culture is, it wouldn't stop it here.
I mean, there are laws here about forced abortions but still they are rampant. Once you legalize abortion, even if you try to make it a matter of choice between a woman and a doctor, involuntary abortions still occur. The same is true of euthanasia.

reply from: AXYSMAN

New member from UK here.
Abortion: 100% anti (unless mothers life in real peril)
Euthanasia: 100% anti.
Death Penalty:100% Pro, especially for child-killers and serial murderers.

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, Axysman.

reply from: Tam

Welcome to the forum, Axys!

reply from: faithman

Then you agree that homcide is justifiable to protect human Life? Then you agree that Paul Hill was right in stopping a killer on his way to butcher womb children? Or do you agree with the punk Flip the switch Benham that womb children are second class citizens, and deserve no protection, and those who do protect life deserve lethal injection?

reply from: coco

Did you galen have a change of heart???

reply from: 1003

that is SO inconsistent.

reply from: Shiprahagain

There's a difference between innocent and guilty life -- even I see that and I oppose the death penalty (we make to many mistakes about people's innocence, especially when the accused lacks power in society.)

reply from: 1003

see, this is a simple theological difference. i don't believe in "innocent life"... with the veil-thin exception of christians, which, as we know, isn't even always true.

reply from: Shiprahagain

The Bible says God hates hands that shed innocent blood (i.e. abortion) That's not a theological difference, you're just ignoring the point of view of the Christian God that innocent bloods exists.

reply from: 1003

verse? and didn't i give an example of innocent blood?

reply from: Shiprahagain

"These six things the Lord hates, yes, seven are an abomination to Him: a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift in running to evil, a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren" (Proverbs 6:16-19).

reply from: yoda

Yeah, we know what you believe in, 1003....... kill them all and let God sort them out, right?
Why bother to take away a baby's innocence before you urge people to kill them? Why not just be a man and own up to your thirst for the blood of innocent babies?

reply from: coco

so is an abortion ok when the mothers life is at risk??

reply from: Shiprahagain

In that case, you could remove the baby but you wouldn't abort it, or intend to kill it, but do everything you can to save both lives.

reply from: Tam

1003, are you saying "I agree" in response to the idea that if the mother's life is at risk, every effort should be made to save both her and the baby via early delivery, and no action taken intentionally to kill the baby?

reply from: Tam

So let me get this straight: you think it's NOT OKAY to intentionally kill a baby when the mother's life is at risk, but you think it IS OKAY to kill a baby whose mother is in perfect health but just doesn't want the baby to live? Is that what you believe? If not--what?

reply from: coco

what if the mother is 2 moths along is it ok to have an abortion then??

reply from: 1003

i think it's generally not ok to kill babies. i mean... if you're pregnant, it's YOUR RIGHT to end the pregnancy. period. but i'd rather you not. and i'd rather you make that decision for the right reasons. not because you saw an aborted fetus, but because you recognize that every aborted child is one worker not feeding the Social Security system and funding education, etc.
boy, when you stop slinging mud, you might see what it is at which you were slinging.

reply from: 1003

no... you're still cool by me.
ok... look. i see it as a RIGHT. but, just as we have a right to... bear arms? yea. ok. a right to bear arms... should we encourage massive gun collections? i think not. we have a right to smoke. ought we? no. we have a right to drink until we can't feel our legs. ought we? probably not. ought we encourage it? no. is it a right? absolutely. do you get that?

reply from: Tam

i think it's generally not ok to kill babies. i mean... if you're pregnant, it's YOUR RIGHT to end the pregnancy. period. but i'd rather you not. and i'd rather you make that decision for the right reasons. not because you saw an aborted fetus, but because you recognize that every aborted child is one worker not feeding the Social Security system and funding education, etc.
boy, when you stop slinging mud, you might see what it is at which you were slinging.
Wow, your views are even more offensive than I'd realized! You think it's a mother's right to kill her baby, even though you think it's not okay to kill babies. And your reasoning about feeding the system....wow.

reply from: Tam

Funny, none of those other things include infanticide. Can you give any other examples of situations where you think infanticide should be legal?

reply from: 1003

i think it's a bad decision. i don't think it's wrong.

reply from: 1003

cuz it causes ill effects in society. look, i think that having guns is generally not ok, but i do not support gun restrictions. our social mores can do a fine job of regulating our behavior, while not explicitly preventing us from exercising our rights.

reply from: Tam

If it's not wrong, why is it "generally not ok?"
Wait--you think killing babies causes ill effects in society? How so? I thought the babies were going to be poor and disadvantaged and abused and unwanted and languishing in foster care and contributing to overpopulation and all the other excuses used to support killing them--are you saying that you don't buy into those excuses, that you actually think killing babies CAUSES ill effects in society rather than helping to reduce poverty, crime, overcrowding, abuse, etc.? Do you admit that killing an individual baby has a negative outcome because that baby should have an equal chance in society, that the "ill effect" is injustice? If not, what is the ill effect caused in society by killing babies?

reply from: yoda

Killing babies is "not wrong"?
You're a real humanitarian......... NOT!

reply from: coco

I THINK killing (except in the case of a person that wishes to be euthanized due to lack of progression of illiness) is wrong. A human being did not asked to be born and therefore has the same "rights" as those of us outside the womb. Once again if a women wants to still do her partying,and not want to deal with a child then use condoms and birth control to prevent abortion. if she should become pregnant then she ought to give that baby for adoption, because she is not doing harm to herself she is doing harm to another human being my abortion.

reply from: yoda

Wow, I could almost say we're on the same side, coco......... almost.........

reply from: Shiprahagain

Hitler exterminated over 273,000 people even before the Holocaust! "The first to be killed were the aged [those who are an economic burden, who detract from the happiness of society as a whole], the infirm, the senile, the mentally retarded, and defective children [that included epileptics]. Then there were WW I veterans - amputees - still in hospitals. Their reward for giving an arm or leg for Germany was extermination as 'undesirable.' Even bed wetters and children with badly modeled ears were put to death - all part of the euthanasia project of Germany."
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/hit.htm

This is why I dislike euthanasia. We make a list of people we feel are disposable and let the killing begin.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics