Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 11:52 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Extending euthanasia to minors
#31
RE: Extending euthanasia to minors
(May 1, 2013 at 2:58 pm)Tex Wrote: I was using murder without invoking positivism, but I wasn't very clear. My apologies. I'd define murder as "unjust taking of life" rather than "unlawful" because morality is independent of a government.

Fair enough. Just remember what you'd personally define a word as is irrelevant. Wink

(May 1, 2013 at 2:58 pm)Tex Wrote: Suicide harms the self by causing death, harms others by permanently severing relationships, and is offensive to God by rejecting the life he gave. Truly, the desire to commit suicide is due to a disordered thought process stemming from the general "It'd be better if I were not alive". This includes physical pain, emotional pain, and the feeling that the elderly get if their kids tell them they are a burden to the family.

Sure, it harms the self, but you must demonstrate that that harm is greater than the harm caused by living out an existence full of pain in which the person is simply waiting for death.

Some suicide can be due to a disordered thought process, but some suicide, such as making the choice to die rather than suffer, can be well thought out and completely rational. When that is true, who are we to deny a person that right?

(May 1, 2013 at 2:58 pm)Tex Wrote: Unless selfishness is a virtue, this is a great thing to choose. If I had some strange disease that caused me to be in great pain, I would not choose death because the experimental therapy done to be could help the next person to get this strange disease. It is good. To choose death is not good. I would prosecute a doctor for assisting the suicide. The patient who desires suicide gets a psych doctor.

This is not about what you would do. What this is about is why you feel people should be obligated to do as you would, which you have failed to demonstrate.

And I think the fact that you think anyone that desires suicide should get a psych doctor is telling. Choosing not to live out your final days in immense pain is not an irrational decision.

(May 1, 2013 at 2:58 pm)Tex Wrote: The person denying the value doesn't make the value go away. The value is objective.

You see, here is where your argument most fails in my eyes, and I think your religious views are influencing your argument, even thought you claim they don't. The value on life is conditional. It is conditional upon the fact that the amount of suffering experienced does not severely outweigh the pleasure. It is conditional upon the fact that the person experiencing that life has determined it worthwhile, and only he/she can make that determination.

(May 1, 2013 at 2:58 pm)Tex Wrote: What is death? Is it not destruction? I will not facilitate their own destruction nor sit back and let others do it.

Okay, I will concede that death is a form of destruction, however, I believe your usage of the word is to simply laden your argument with emotion.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Reply
#32
RE: Extending euthanasia to minors
It's okay for God to strike someone with an affliction which leaves death as the only means of escaping a nightmare of pain and forced vegetation, but it's horrible to want to end that life. As he did when he endorsed the practice of slavery, Tex demonstrates just why the rejection of biblical morality is something we, as a society, have to do our best to promote if we want to leave behind the barbaric infancy of our species.
Reply
#33
RE: Extending euthanasia to minors
(May 1, 2013 at 2:58 pm)Tex Wrote: 1) Bible issues no command on suicide, but portrays it negatively every time (and samson is not suicide).

How is this so? Samson knew that his actions would result in his death, crying out "let me die with the Philistines" when he caused the pillars of the house he was in to collapse.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

-Stephen Jay Gould
Reply
#34
RE: Extending euthanasia to minors
(May 1, 2013 at 3:26 pm)Faith No More Wrote:
(May 1, 2013 at 2:58 pm)Tex Wrote: Suicide harms the self by causing death, harms others by permanently severing relationships, and is offensive to God by rejecting the life he gave. Truly, the desire to commit suicide is due to a disordered thought process stemming from the general "It'd be better if I were not alive". This includes physical pain, emotional pain, and the feeling that the elderly get if their kids tell them they are a burden to the family.

Sure, it harms the self, but you must demonstrate that that harm is greater than the harm caused by living out an existence full of pain in which the person is simply waiting for death.

I have to differentiate between pains since the big catch-all answer is really vague: "death is the lack of hope". Yes, I know, this is corny and doesn't answer a lot. Let me explain.

If psychological pain (depression, family pressure, other emotional stress), then what suicide does is end change. Many good things can still happen, regardless of personal perspectives. In death, nothing can happen. You're dead. You're not going to learn things, you're not going to make friends, you're not going to have emotions, you're not going to even feel the passage of time. All done. There isn't even a "you", technically speaking. This denial of change makes sure that no good can ever enter into your life again. While the pain is happening, at the very least, good is still possible.

With more bodily pains (literally the nerves in the body firing), the same thing applies. There is opportunity for the person to get better, but experimentation may be necessary in extreme situations. This agony is different than the psychological pain, but death does the same thing: it removes opportunity for good. If alive, you can potentially be cured. Your body may sting constantly, but the person could still be loved by their family. Death does nothing good, it simply eliminates everything.

Finally, "quality of life" pain. This would be something like a person paralyzed from the neck down. Especially after experiencing a life with full motion, the dramatic change is a big shock. This usually leads to depression. However, death here removes all opportunity for good. Multiple different good things can still happen even with the limited mobility. Sure, walking around is easier than an electric wheelchair, but does it really constitute death? In this case, Stephen Hawkins and Helen Keller all should commit suicide. I think both of those cases is ridiculous.

(May 1, 2013 at 3:26 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Some suicide can be due to a disordered thought process, but some suicide, such as making the choice to die rather than suffer, can be well thought out and completely rational. When that is true, who are we to deny a person that right?

I read this the same as "sometimes, using a bad means to get to a good end is acceptable". Suicide does have an appeal, which is why people do it. Suicide will stop the pain, whatever type. It is not, however, rational in and of itself. You also stop the good. Pain isn't fun, yes, but you can be in pain and be happy at the same time. Ask any mother. Well, not while they're having the baby, they're a little flustered.

(May 1, 2013 at 3:26 pm)Faith No More Wrote:
(May 1, 2013 at 2:58 pm)Tex Wrote: Unless selfishness is a virtue, this is a great thing to choose. If I had some strange disease that caused me to be in great pain, I would not choose death because the experimental therapy done to be could help the next person to get this strange disease. It is good. To choose death is not good. I would prosecute a doctor for assisting the suicide. The patient who desires suicide gets a psych doctor.

This is not about what you would do. What this is about is why you feel people should be obligated to do as you would, which you have failed to demonstrate.

And I think the fact that you think anyone that desires suicide should get a psych doctor is telling. Choosing not to live out your final days in immense pain is not an irrational decision.

I'd like to differentiate between "obligated" and "forced". I do not mean to force them to do anything (its not my morality) but I will call people out for not meeting perfection (and I expect them to do the same to me).

You're correct this isn't about what Tex feels people should do. That'd be extremely arrogant. My position is more to the extent of "this is the way, this is off the path" and "the way" is not subjective to my feelings. I "feel" that men should open doors for ladies, but I have no basis to include that in some sort of moral system. =) The moral system revolves around reason, objective.

And finally, you are correct it is not irrational to want to live out your final days without pain. I'm not pro-suffering or any strange masochism crap, and if pain meds work, by all means, use them. When they don't, while death does remove the pain (because the individual no longer exists), but to cause the death is "off the path". It is good to end the pain, but the means used also must be good. Here, we're killing an innocent, and there is really no way someone can call that good.

(May 1, 2013 at 3:26 pm)Faith No More Wrote:
(May 1, 2013 at 2:58 pm)Tex Wrote: The person denying the value doesn't make the value go away. The value is objective.

You see, here is where your argument most fails in my eyes, and I think your religious views are influencing your argument, even thought you claim they don't. The value on life is conditional. It is conditional upon the fact that the amount of suffering experienced does not severely outweigh the pleasure. It is conditional upon the fact that the person experiencing that life has determined it worthwhile, and only he/she can make that determination.

Hedonism at it's finest. If this were true, the person's assertion "I want to die" or "I want to live" is meaningless. Its only about pleasure and pain. If this moral system is true, we can euthanize the young and old without consent. Consent no longer matters because there is no dignity.

The problem I have with this is that people can be in great pain and still be happy. It seems more like there is a distinction in happy and pleasure as well as suffering and pain. I know many rich, successful, highly praised celebrities that have all sorts of pleasure in their lives, but are suffering.

(May 1, 2013 at 3:26 pm)Faith No More Wrote:
(May 1, 2013 at 2:58 pm)Tex Wrote: What is death? Is it not destruction? I will not facilitate their own destruction nor sit back and let others do it.

Okay, I will concede that death is a form of destruction, however, I believe your usage of the word is to simply laden your argument with emotion.

I guess there's some pathos in it. I tried not to use the word in this post in order to make up for it.

(May 1, 2013 at 3:57 pm)Tonus Wrote:
(May 1, 2013 at 2:58 pm)Tex Wrote: 1) Bible issues no command on suicide, but portrays it negatively every time (and samson is not suicide).

How is this so? Samson knew that his actions would result in his death, crying out "let me die with the Philistines" when he caused the pillars of the house he was in to collapse.

The action wasn't to cause his death. The action of euthanasia is to use death as a means to end pain. The action of samson was to collapse the building in order to squish his captors. His death was involved, but it is not the means nor the end.
The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.
Reply
#35
RE: Extending euthanasia to minors
Quote:If this were true, the person's assertion "I want to die" or "I want to live" is meaningless. Its only about pleasure and pain.

If this wasn't true, the person's assertion "I want to die" or "I want to live" is meaningless. It's only about what God wants.
Reply
#36
RE: Extending euthanasia to minors
(May 1, 2013 at 6:33 pm)Tex Wrote: Sure, walking around is easier than an electric wheelchair, but does it really constitute death? In this case, Stephen Hawkins and Helen Keller all should commit suicide. I think both of those cases is ridiculous.
I don't believe anyone is arguing that all people with debilitating illness should be euthanized. Rather, that the choice of how one dies should be made by the individual.

(May 1, 2013 at 6:33 pm)Tex Wrote: I read this the same as "sometimes, using a bad means to get to a good end is acceptable". Suicide does have an appeal, which is why people do it. Suicide will stop the pain, whatever type. It is not, however, rational in and of itself. You also stop the good. Pain isn't fun, yes, but you can be in pain and be happy at the same time. Ask any mother. Well, not while they're having the baby, they're a little flustered.
Bad comparison. Labor pain is pain which serves a valid purpose. A woman's uterus contracts to open the cervix and expel a baby. The pain of a terminally ill person is very different to the temporary pain of childbirth (which I'd rate at a 6 for my first child and an 8 for my second, neither of which were as painful as my busted tailbone last winter).

(May 1, 2013 at 6:33 pm)Tex Wrote: I'd like to differentiate between "obligated" and "forced". I do not mean to force them to do anything (its not my morality) but I will call people out for not meeting perfection (and I expect them to do the same to me).

You're correct this isn't about what Tex feels people should do. That'd be extremely arrogant. My position is more to the extent of "this is the way, this is off the path" and "the way" is not subjective to my feelings. I "feel" that men should open doors for ladies, but I have no basis to include that in some sort of moral system. =) The moral system revolves around reason, objective.

And finally, you are correct it is not irrational to want to live out your final days without pain. I'm not pro-suffering or any strange masochism crap, and if pain meds work, by all means, use them. When they don't, while death does remove the pain (because the individual no longer exists), but to cause the death is "off the path". It is good to end the pain, but the means used also must be good. Here, we're killing an innocent, and there is really no way someone can call that good.
How is legislating your version of morality and expecting others to follow it anything less than arrogant? Just because you say it as "they aren't following 'the path'" doesn't mean anything other than "this is what I think is right and people should follow it." Not everyone subscribes to your version of morality.

(May 1, 2013 at 6:33 pm)Tex Wrote: Hedonism at it's finest. If this were true, the person's assertion "I want to die" or "I want to live" is meaningless. Its only about pleasure and pain. If this moral system is true, we can euthanize the young and old without consent. Consent no longer matters because there is no dignity.

The problem I have with this is that people can be in great pain and still be happy. It seems more like there is a distinction in happy and pleasure as well as suffering and pain. I know many rich, successful, highly praised celebrities that have all sorts of pleasure in their lives, but are suffering.
There are people who are dying, painfully, and are happy. You are correct. But there are also people dying, painfully, who are not happy. It's about the freedom of being able to choose one's death, not about "Hey there, Mr. Cancer patient. Your tumor is inoperable, so we're just going to put you down." Some people grow from their suffering, others are trapped by it and cannot escape it. Why shouldn't they be afforded the right to make up their own minds about it? Very similar to abortion... Personally I don't think I could have one, but far be it for me to make that decision for someone else.

(May 1, 2013 at 6:33 pm)Tex Wrote: The action wasn't to cause his death. The action of euthanasia is to use death as a means to end pain. The action of samson was to collapse the building in order to squish his captors. His death was involved, but it is not the means nor the end.
So... suicide is A-Okay as long as it serves some greater purpose. So if we were to legislate that all euthanasia patients must donate their bodies to science in an effort to cure whatever terminal illness they're dying from, those deaths would be justified if doctors can find a cure. Right? I'd be happy with this proviso, so long as I don't have to die a vegetable or in horrible agony.
Reply
#37
RE: Extending euthanasia to minors
(May 1, 2013 at 6:33 pm)Tex Wrote:


Sure, death removes all opportunity for good, but what you're failing to realize is that it is not your place to decide whether that opportunity for good is worth living out an existence full of pain for. Only the person living that life can make that decision, and it is not your place to assert your own personal beliefs on someone else.

(May 1, 2013 at 6:33 pm)Tex Wrote: I read this the same as "sometimes, using a bad means to get to a good end is acceptable". Suicide does have an appeal, which is why people do it. Suicide will stop the pain, whatever type. It is not, however, rational in and of itself. You also stop the good. Pain isn't fun, yes, but you can be in pain and be happy at the same time. Ask any mother. Well, not while they're having the baby, they're a little flustered.

Again, only the person living that life can make the decision whether stopping the chance for good is outweighed by ending their pain, and a person coming to a different conclusion than you would does not make it irrational.

(May 1, 2013 at 6:33 pm)Tex Wrote: I'd like to differentiate between "obligated" and "forced". I do not mean to force them to do anything (its not my morality) but I will call people out for not meeting perfection (and I expect them to do the same to me).

By threatening to put anyone in jail that would help another commit suicide, you are definitely trying to force others to do as you would.

(May 1, 2013 at 6:33 pm)Tex Wrote: You're correct this isn't about what Tex feels people should do. That'd be extremely arrogant. My position is more to the extent of "this is the way, this is off the path" and "the way" is not subjective to my feelings. I "feel" that men should open doors for ladies, but I have no basis to include that in some sort of moral system. =)The moral system revolves around reason, objective.

It is extremely arrogant, not only for attempting to force others to behave as you believe they should, but for attempting to pass off your own subjective feelings as some sort of objective truth, which is all you have been able to do.

(May 1, 2013 at 6:33 pm)Tex Wrote: And finally, you are correct it is not irrational to want to live out your final days without pain. I'm not pro-suffering or any strange masochism crap, and if pain meds work, by all means, use them. When they don't, while death does remove the pain (because the individual no longer exists), but to cause the death is "off the path". It is good to end the pain, but the means used also must be good. Here, we're killing an innocent, and there is really no way someone can call that good.

Again with the emotionally laden language. The only person doing any killing is the person making the decision to end their own lives, which you have failed to demonstrate why that is not their right.

And what is this "off the path" that you speak of? It sounds suspiciously like new-age garbage, and until you can show that there is such thing as a "path," it is irrelevant.

(May 1, 2013 at 6:33 pm)Tex Wrote: Hedonism at it's finest. If this were true, the person's assertion "I want to die" or "I want to live" is meaningless. Its only about pleasure and pain. If this moral system is true, we can euthanize the young and old without consent. Consent no longer matters because there is no dignity.

It's not hedonism. It's pragmatism.

And where are you getting this nonsense of "without consent?" A greater man made of straw there never was.

(May 1, 2013 at 6:33 pm)Tex Wrote: The problem I have with this is that people can be in great pain and still be happy. It seems more like there is a distinction in happy and pleasure as well as suffering and pain. I know many rich, successful, highly praised celebrities that have all sorts of pleasure in their lives, but are suffering.

That's all fine and dandy, but I have to repeat once again that you have failed to demonstrate why you should be able to make the decision for someone else as to whether or not any amount of pleasure is worth a life of pain. I mean, you are more than welcome to explain your views to a terminally ill patient, however, it is not your right to dictate to that person that they must endure a life of pain if they do not want to.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Do you support euthanasia? IanHulett 40 6224 February 18, 2015 at 8:19 pm
Last Post: pgrimes15



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)