(January 25, 2015 at 12:00 am)Lek Wrote: ... Is someone who lives to be 100 luckier than one who lives only to be 17? ...

YES!!!! Obviously. Only an anti-human, death cultist would think otherwise. I find your comments disgusting.

If the parents and doctors do not accurately pass on this information, that makes them complicit. Religious delusions that these numbers are different than tests have proven is not a valid excuse.

Sorry. Double post. Nothing to see here. Move along.

(January 25, 2015 at 12:00 am)Lek Wrote:

(January 24, 2015 at 11:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Oh, okay, so it's just sophistry; you want the government to interfere with who can marry who by maintaining the legal status quo, but you don't want the hypocrisy of holding this position in contrast to your view on the other case to negatively affect your argument. Gross.

No. I want to end the government's involvement in marriage and allow for civil unions to provide protection for all persons involved in the contract, including children. I want marriage to be a personal thing.

So it's all about the word 'marriage'? That's your problem?

Quote:We have different views on life and probably will never agree on this. Is it better to live 17 years or 100 years? Is someone who lives to be 100 luckier than one who lives only to be 17? You and I have different worldviews.

Is it ok for a 16-year-old to choose to die?
Is it ok for a 15-year-old to choose to die?
Is it ok for a 14-year-old to choose to die?
Is it ok for a 13-year-old to choose to die?
Is it ok for a 12-year-old to choose to die?
...
Is it ok for a 6-year-old to choose to die?

At what point is it not ok?

Its not okay for a 6-year old to die or even choose to die.
Because a child is not mentally developed enough to know what dying really is.

Here's a view from a christian "death cultist". I see no reason why living to 100 would be better than living to 17 just because it's longer. I measure the value of our lives according to quality, not quantity. I see more enthusiasm and peace in this little girl, than I see in so many bitter old people. We're here to live out our purpose and then to move on to eternal life. Actually, according to scripture, we will live out eternity on the "new earth" where everything is great. I see nothing wrong in allowing myself to die if I have a terminal disease, rather than go through excruciating therapy, if I felt that it was God's will. This is a decision I would make for myself or my child after much prayer and listening for God's guidance, and being in tune with the desires of my child. As long I'm in tune with God and my child's, (and this is not suicide) I see no reason to think I will regret my decision after death. I don't see any advantage just to living a longer life. Many have lived a much fuller life in a short time than others who have lived a long time.

This is my view from an atheist perspective. Humans are just a more highly evolved form of animal life. In reality, our lives are no more important that the other animals on the earth. We rule simply because we are more intelligent. The reason it is better to live longer is because this is our only opportunity at life, so we should make the best of it. The longer we live, the longer we have to experience happiness and to help others do so. Yet, we afford our dogs more compassion than we do our children. If our dog is going through great suffering, we will put him away rather that go through grueling medical procedures because we have compassion on him. All this, even though we're taking away his one chance at life-the right that he has as much as we do. If we are no more than highly evolved animals why don't we merit the same compassion as our pets? It's not as if she is going to exist somewhere and be able to have regret over the decision to die. Why is it moral to do that for your dog, but not for your child, since one has as much right to life as the other?

If your dog had a very high chance of living with the proper medical care and you don't get him that care then you should be charged with animal cruelty. Actually, I think you would be charged with a crime

The little girl in the OP wanted to live or her parents wouldn't have sought out alternative medicine for a cure.

(January 25, 2015 at 2:58 pm)Nope Wrote: If your dog had a very high chance of living with the proper medical care and you don't get him that care then you should be charged with animal cruelty. Actually, I think you would be charged with a crime

The little girl in the OP wanted to live or her parents wouldn't have sought out alternative medicine for a cure.

Exactly that is shit parenting and i hope that child parents go to jail.

(January 25, 2015 at 2:58 pm)Nope Wrote: If your dog had a very high chance of living with the proper medical care and you don't get him that care then you should be charged with animal cruelty. Actually, I think you would be charged with a crime

No. If you have a sick dog and you have a vet put him down, you won't be charged with a crime.

Quote:The little girl in the OP wanted to live or her parents wouldn't have sought out alternative medicine for a cure.

What she wanted was to end the chemo and receive alternative care.

She wanted to live or she wouldn't have undergone any type of medical

cure. Sorry for the space between the words. I am on my phone and I am apparently too phone illiterate to know how to correct that gap.

---

If my dog gets injured and I don't get him help, I would be guilty of animal abuse.

Do you support euthanasia for humans, Lek?