(January 25, 2015 at 3:14 pm)Nope Wrote: 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?

I agree she wanted to live. She also wanted to end the chemo. No, I don't support euthanasia for humans.

Yes, once again a sweet kid dies because of ignorance and stupidity.

(January 25, 2015 at 3:14 pm)Nope Wrote: 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?

I support euthanasia when it is needed for people who have terminal illnesses or so form of medical condition when the quality of life is to far low to keep living otherwise no i really do not.

(January 25, 2015 at 3:09 pm)Lek Wrote: No. If you have a sick dog and you have a vet put him down, you won't be charged with a crime.

If you have a sick dog and the illness has a cure with a high chance of success, and you allow the dog to get sicker and sicker- which, to be clear, is what's actually happening here- then you can be charged with animal abuse. Putting down a dog and what's happening in either of these cases is not remotely similar; in one you are reducing the pain of an animal with little to no chance of survival, and in the other two you're barring people with a high chance of survival from easily obtainable medicine, condemning them both to a lingering, painful death of their illnesses when we know they aren't fully mentally equipped to make the decision themselves, all because the treatment that will allow them life is temporarily painful. And all in aid of... what, exactly? A heaven that you only want to believe is real, without any evidence to show for it?

Let me ask you this, before you make any more malformed comparisons: do you think I should be arrested and imprisoned for murdering you? I mean, in your worldview I've done you a favor, right? What if I murdered some children, for the same rationale? Are you in favor of the dismantling of murder laws for children? Or is your thinking inconsistent, and only down to convenience?

Quote: No, I don't support euthanasia for humans.

Ah, so on the one hand we treat dogs better than people by allowing them to die, but at the same time you just kinda want humans to die in agony and despair rather than being given the same kind, simple exit. Bloody hell, Lek, which position do you want to hold? Because holding both at once is just nonsensical.

(January 24, 2015 at 9:37 pm)Lek Wrote: The government also has no right to change the definition of what marriage is.

Incorrect. In any legal matter, the government must define the terms of its legislation. Furthermore, as language evolves, people themselves redefine words. No one told you Christians that the word "marriage" is yours and only yours to define as you wish and then you can inflict that definition on others simply to support your Bronze Age bigotry.

(January 25, 2015 at 3:33 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(January 24, 2015 at 9:37 pm)Lek Wrote: The government also has no right to change the definition of what marriage is.

Incorrect. In any legal matter, the government must define the terms of its legislation. Furthermore, as language evolves, people themselves redefine words. No one told you Christians that the word "marriage" is yours and only yours to define as you wish and then you can inflict that definition on others simply to support your Bronze Age bigotry.

I am agreeing with Parkers with this marriage is not a biblical thing.

(January 25, 2015 at 2:29 pm)Lek Wrote: 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?

I think your impression of the atheist approach to this issue is overly simplistic and colored by your bias. I've taken part in that decision before, regarding my father; I understood his desire as expressed to me and his wife and we presented it to his doctor.

I don't know any atheist who regards an informed decision to die, legally made by a competent person, as immoral. Those conditions don't obtain in matters where religious adults refuse treatment for their kids.

(January 25, 2015 at 3:33 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: No one told you Christians that the word "marriage" is yours and only yours to define as you wish ...

I do not think the word marriage is even in the babble-book.

(January 25, 2015 at 3:19 pm)Lek Wrote: No, I don't support euthanasia for humans.

So, I'm sensing a pretty big contradiction is your argumentation here.

(January 25, 2015 at 3:46 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(January 25, 2015 at 3:19 pm)Lek Wrote: No, I don't support euthanasia for humans.

So, I'm sensing a pretty big contradiction is your argumentation here.

Because yeah i seen it he agrees with the parents and the parents basically euthanize their child by letting the child die.