A definition for freedom
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-01-2011, 01:13 PM
RE: A definition for freedom
Not to mention suicide. I am prohibited to take my own life according to almost any religous doctrine I've ever heard of, not to mention by law! (Yep, against the law to kill yourself) If we enjoyed true freedom, it would be acceptable to choose to end ones own life. I'm not advocating suicide here. I want to be VERY clear about that. BUT, if I were to have a terminal illness, that was incurable, then once that illness made my quality of life bad enough (ie. no longer able to enjoy any part of my life) I would consider ending it. I have no fear of being punished for suicide, and if I can't contribute or enjoy life, I wouldn't see anything wrong with ending it.

Just visiting.

-SR
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2011, 01:22 PM
RE: A definition for freedom
Sounds like you're pro euthanasia.

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2011, 01:31 PM
RE: A definition for freedom
Quote:BUT, if I were to have a terminal illness, that was incurable, then once that illness made my quality of life bad enough (ie. no longer able to enjoy any part of my life) I would consider ending it.
I've heard horrible stories of people who are in such a bad condition that they can't kill them selfs, but they are forced to live in pain because every patient will be kept alive as long as possible, no matter what.

You can kill a suffering animal in the name of humaneness, but you can't kill a suffering human no matter how much the human begs for it. Sad

Correct me when I'm wrong.
Accept me or go to hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2011, 01:42 PM
RE: A definition for freedom
(07-01-2011 01:31 PM)Kikko Wrote:  
Quote:BUT, if I were to have a terminal illness, that was incurable, then once that illness made my quality of life bad enough (ie. no longer able to enjoy any part of my life) I would consider ending it.
I've heard horrible stories of people who are in such a bad condition that they can't kill them selfs, but they are forced to live in pain because every patient will be kept alive as long as possible, no matter what.

You can kill a suffering animal in the name of humaneness, but you can't kill a suffering human no matter how much the human begs for it. Sad
I'm glad i live in Belgium. We have a rather progressive euthanasia law here.

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2011, 01:43 PM
RE: A definition for freedom
(07-01-2011 01:13 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Yep, against the law to kill yourself

No, it's against the law to fail in an attempt to kill yourself. There are no additional penalties for succeeding.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2011, 02:13 PM
RE: A definition for freedom
(07-01-2011 01:43 PM)BnW Wrote:  
(07-01-2011 01:13 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Yep, against the law to kill yourself

No, it's against the law to fail in an attempt to kill yourself. There are no additional penalties for succeeding.

Smart ass. Dodgy

Just visiting.

-SR
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2011, 02:16 PM
RE: A definition for freedom
(07-01-2011 01:22 PM)The_observer Wrote:  Sounds like you're pro euthanasia.

I'm not sure how the term "pro euthanasia" would be defined. If it means a person who believes it should be their own choice as to how they life, and even IF they live, then I suppose I am.

Just visiting.

-SR
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2011, 02:29 PM
RE: A definition for freedom
(07-01-2011 02:16 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  I'm not sure how the term "pro euthanasia" would be defined. If it means a person who believes it should be their own choice as to how they life, and even IF they live, then I suppose I am.
I do. (i sense a new POLL here :rolleyesSmile

When translated from Greek euthanasia means "to decide for your own". Commonly it is used as a term to describe "ending ones life at your own choice". There aren't many country in the world where that is legal.

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2011, 05:46 PM
RE: A definition for freedom
(05-01-2011 05:04 PM)gaglamesh731 Wrote:  Freedom : The right of one individual , to believe and act as they wish as long as they do not bring harm to those around them.

This statement demonstrates that true freedom is impossible because, by not harming other people as a stipulation, the freedoms of those who want to harm others is being stepped on. This means that freedom is a compromise. It limits our freedoms so that we can live our lives relatively free, but not totally free.

The balance between freedom and restrictions is decided by the powers that have influence in law-making. There will always be those who are unhappy with these decisions. If you live in a well governed area, the laws will give you a balance that doesn't restrict the actions of good moral people (not in the religious way). In a poorly governed area, those peole will be subjugated and restricted in ways that are acceptable to only the rich and powerful, or a tyranistic government.

When I find myself in times of trouble, Richard Dawkins comes to me, speaking words of reason, now I see, now I see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2011, 04:05 PM
RE: A definition for freedom
(07-01-2011 05:46 PM)No J. Wrote:  The balance between freedom and restrictions is decided by the powers that have influence in law-making. There will always be those who are unhappy with these decisions. If you live in a well governed area, the laws will give you a balance that doesn't restrict the actions of good moral people (not in the religious way). In a poorly governed area, those peole will be subjugated and restricted in ways that are acceptable to only the rich and powerful, or a tyranistic government.

I don't get this No J . What do the rich / tyrants have to do with the balance of freedom and restriction ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: