Euthanasia?

#1
A

allvol123

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
50,174
Likes
50,299
#1
Not a hot button political issue right now but can evoke strong sentiment from either side...wanted to see some of the opinions of people on here concerning this issue...political and religious opinions welcome.
 
#2
#2
allvol123 said:
Not a hot button political issue right now but can evoke strong sentiment from either side...wanted to see some of the opinions of people on here concerning this issue...political and religious opinions welcome.
Click to expand...
While I think it is wrong on all levels, I see no reason why someone who wants to put an end to their own life cannot seek the help of others to do so. I also see no reason why that person should not be paid for such service.
 
#3
#3
if it's used to control the unwanted pet population...
 
#4
#4
I'm all for it, especially for people living with diseases that cause them so much pain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#5
#5
You think people should have to sign some paperwork when they are healthy stating they wish to have this procedure done if the get sick with "x". Otherwise you potentially get people making this decision that do not have the ability of rational thought.
 
#6
#6
allvol123 said:
You think people should have to sign some paperwork when they are healthy stating they wish to have this procedure done if the get sick with "x". Otherwise you potentially get people making this decision that do not have the ability of rational thought.
Click to expand...

I would have to say yes, but there are some who could never imagine the pain and misery until they actually experience it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#7
#7
Yep. I guess that is why it is a complicated issue. I guess I agree with trut. I disagree with doing it, but a sick person has the right to die if they choose.
 
#9
#9
It's already legal. It's just not called euthanasia. That's how it is in TN and AL anyway. Parent went through it this past summer.
 
Last edited:
#10
#10
When I was younger I never understood the controversy of "youth in Asia". Thought it was an objection to kids being turned into commies. :)
 
#11
#11
therealUT said:
While I think it is wrong on all levels, I see no reason why someone who wants to put an end to their own life cannot seek the help of others to do so. I also see no reason why that person should not be paid for such service.
Click to expand...

"Hey, if you'll kill me I'll pay you for it."
 
#12
#12
therealUT said:
While I think it is wrong on all levels,I see no reason why someone who wants to put an end to their own life cannot seek the help of others to do so. I also see no reason why that person should not be paid for such service.
Click to expand...

:crazy:
 
#13
#13
bamacheats said:
:crazy:
Click to expand...

This is a valuable learning lesson for you and others who have a hard time understanding this. TRUT is saying that while he personally thinks it's wrong, he does not believe we have the authority to mandate this personal opinion on others who disagree with us, and people inherently have the right to their own body. This is the same lesson with abortion, gay marriage, etc. You are allowed to disagree with it, but when you try to enforce your beliefs on others, you've crossed the line between disagreeing with it and imposing your views on other people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#14
#14
MercyPercy said:
You are allowed to disagree with it, but when you try to enforce your beliefs on others, you've crossed the line between disagreeing with it and imposing your views on other people.
Click to expand...

You know that door swings both ways, right?

(no pun intended)
 
#15
#15
Grand Vol said:
You know that door swings both ways, right?

(no pun intended)
Click to expand...

Not really. When I say people should have the freedom to get gay married and abort their babies and partake in assisted euthanasia, I'm not forcing those individuals to conform to my beliefs, I'm not making anyone get gay married or have abortions, I'm allowing them to make their own decisions. When you try and prevent those people from having those freedoms, you are enforcing your beliefs onto others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#16
#16
MercyPercy said:
Not really. When I say people should have the freedom to get gay married and abort their babies and partake in assisted euthanasia, I'm not forcing those individuals to conform to my beliefs, I'm not making anyone get gay married or have abortions, I'm allowing them to make their own decisions. When you try and prevent those people from having those freedoms, you are enforcing your beliefs onto others.
Click to expand...

But on the same token, forcing someone to go against their beliefs is enforcing your viewpoint on them. Take the bakery that didn't want to sell to the gay couple getting married. They had their beliefs and were not forcing it on anyone. Yet they were slapped with a civil rights ruling against them. They were not forcing beliefs on anyone, just refusing service.

So the door swings both ways in this regard. You cannot enforce beliefs going either way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#17
#17
MercyPercy said:
This is a valuable learning lesson for you and others who have a hard time understanding this. TRUT is saying that while he personally thinks it's wrong, he does not believe we have the authority to mandate this personal opinion on others who disagree with us, and people inherently have the right to their own body. This is the same lesson with abortion, gay marriage, etc. You are allowed to disagree with it, but when you try to enforce your beliefs on others, you've crossed the line between disagreeing with it and imposing your views on other people.
Click to expand...

Over simplified stupidity. Imo.

If my neighbor wants to beat the hell out of his kid, I'm defending the kid because he can't defend himself. That's why abortion is wrong.

Like it or not, your actions resulted in life. The defenseless should be defended.

Interestingly, if I go to a farm, and poison a field right after seeding, destroying the crop, I'm penalized as if it had 100% production success, which no farm has, and not the first sprout has seen light. Rightfully so, I might add, because I destroyed something that was potentially and probably going to live and produce.

The bolded part is referred to as 'philosophy hypocrisy.'
 
  • Like
Reactions: DC_Vol, distrovol, VolsNSkinsFan and 4 others
#18
#18
Grand Vol said:
But on the same token, forcing someone to go against their beliefs is enforcing your viewpoint on them. Take the bakery that didn't want to sell to the gay couple getting married. They had their beliefs and were not forcing it on anyone. Yet they were slapped with a civil rights ruling against them. They were not forcing beliefs on anyone, just refusing service.

So the door swings both ways in this regard. You cannot enforce beliefs going either way.
Click to expand...

I don't give a damn about the bakery, a private business can serve who they want and they can be bigots if they want. I don't agree that they were ruled against. I'm simply making the point that telling someone they can't do something(get married) =/= telling someone they can get married. One is allowing them to live their life(as long as they aren't hurting others), the other is restricting their freedom to make those type of choices, thus being forced to conform to your morality by law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#19
#19
bamacheats said:
Over simplified stupidity. Imo.

If my neighbor wants to beat the hell out of his kid, I'm defending the kid because he can't defend himself. That's why abortion is wrong.

Like it or not, your actions resulted in life. The defenseless should be defended.

Interestingly, if I go to a farm, and poison a field right after seeding, destroying the crop, I'm penalized as if it had 100% production success, which no farm has, and not the first sprout has seen light. Rightfully so, I might add, because I destroyed something that was potentially and probably going to live and produce.

The bolded part is referred to as 'philosophy hypocrisy.'
Click to expand...

Over simplified stupidity is not seeing how imposing(not having or sharing) your views on others is antithetical to the idea that personal freedom should be respected.

And just like you don't want sharia law, I don't want sharia law or law that's determined by christian beliefs. Laws should be secular by nature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#20
#20
MercyPercy said:
Over simplified stupidity is not seeing how imposing(not having or sharing) your views on others is antithetical to the idea that personal freedom should be respected.

And just like you don't want sharia law, I don't want sharia law or law that's determined by christian beliefs. Laws should be secular by nature.
Click to expand...

Vacuuming a person out of a womb without their consent fits your panacea perfectly. Good job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#21
#21
bamacheats said:
Vacuuming a person out of a womb without their consent fits your panacea perfectly. Good job.
Click to expand...

Good luck getting consent from a fetus.

giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#22
#22
MercyPercy said:
I don't give a damn about the bakery, a private business can serve who they want and they can be bigots if they want. I don't agree that they were ruled against. I'm simply making the point that telling someone they can't do something(get married) =/= telling someone they can get married. One is allowing them to live their life(as long as they aren't hurting others), the other is restricting their freedom to make those type of choices, thus being forced to conform to your morality by law.
Click to expand...

Good grief, don't ignore the example I used because it doesn't fit your agenda or anything.

Point being the bakery was forced into accepting something they didn't believe in. And if THAT'S not central to your argument, I don't know what is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Behr, SpaceCoastVol, VolsNSkinsFan and 2 others
#23
#23
Grand Vol said:
Good grief, don't ignore the example I used because it doesn't fit your agenda or anything.

Point being the bakery was forced into accepting something they didn't believe in. And if THAT'S not central to your argument, I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

I said that the bakery should have the right to serve who they want. That is central to my argument considering it's consistent with my point about not letting government mandate morality. My only agenda here is to promote personal freedom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#24
#24
MercyPercy said:
I said that the bakery should have the right to serve who they want. That is central to my argument considering it's consistent with my point about not letting government mandate morality. My only agenda here is to promote personal freedom.
Click to expand...

And my point is that door swings both ways. You can't have one group that objects to any matter of things, like gay marriage or abortion, get forced to do something that goes against their moral or spiritual beliefs. Which is exactly what happened in the bakery situation.

Turnabout is not fair play in this regard.
 
#25
#25
Grand Vol said:
And my point is that door swings both ways. You can't have one group that objects to any matter of things, like gay marriage or abortion, get forced to do something that goes against their moral or spiritual beliefs. Which is exactly what happened in the bakery situation.

Turnabout is not fair play in this regard.
Click to expand...

Solution:

Let the gays get married, let the bakery owners not serve them if they don't want to.

anchorman-teamjump.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top