Right to die

[KnockEmOuttt]

Withholding food from someone is starving them, and how was it that you knew withholding the food is what hastened the death anyway? I don't know where you get off trying to insult someone's intelligence because they've pointed out the flaws of your argument.

By deciding to withhold food from someone you are taking part in deciding what will happen to their body and effectively their life, and that is exactly the thing you judge others for doing under the premise that life and the human body are God's property. Of course, from your statements it's clear that this applies to everyone but you. It's only a sin if someone else does it.

Are you unable to understand what is written, it sure seems that way. I've gone 24 hrs. without eating and in no way was I starving myself. You must be as dense as RD if you believe that no food for 24 hrs. is starving yourself. The doctors told us that to give him food would extend the time he would suffer, keeping the doctors from using a feeding tube was not to hasten his death, it was to not extend his suffering. Dad died a natural death, he did not starve and was given his wish not to use any measures that would extend his life, nothing was given to him to end his life, euthanasia means to take a life by means of drugs. To allow someone to die naturally is not euthanasia, simple really.

By choosing to "not extend his life" you are choosing to hasten his death.

You were withholding food with the intent to cause or hasten death. You can call it what you want, but it's starvation. I would contest that you really do not understand what euthanasia is. What you did for your father is called indirect or passive euthanasia. It's a hands-off alternative to active euthanasia, but it can often lead to a prolonged death. Your father was lucky he only lasted 24 hours, but in some cases (Terri Schiavo, anyone?) it can go on for over a week.

---

"without the food there was no need to extend his or our suffering"

Translation; he died sooner than he naturally would of because he wasn't fed.
Thats cutting someones life short to prevent further suffering.
Thats euthanasia.
If you can't deal with that and want to continue with your dellusion then don't present it as evidence euthanasia shouldn't be legal because thats grossly hypocritical and I will call you out on it.

You are the most hateful arrogant person I've ever met, all you care about is causing controversy, you are senseless in your understanding, your life must be a nightmare and in the future you will suffer from your way of life.

That's not an argument, sir. Nor is it a valid contribution to this discussion. Raph isn't being hateful or arrogant, he's simply pointing out holes in your arguments and noting that you're just as guilty of the things you say are against the will of God. You just refuse to see it because you don't want to appear hypocritical, since that would be self-defeating on your part.