Euthanasia?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-04-2017, 05:47 AM
RE: Euthanasia?
Permitting end-of-life choice is the only reasonable conclusion. Some pro-lifers are willing to "compromise" by allowing self-starvation and/or dehydration.

https://youtu.be/ge7dlzMCbos?t=6485

Some also love defining compassion as "suffering with" others. Not only is this incorrect (etymology and meaning are independent), but it is an extremely defeatist attitude that wouldn't even allow for the administration of aspirin. Or anesthetics before surgery.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like AyameTan's post
18-04-2017, 06:35 AM (This post was last modified: 18-04-2017 06:44 AM by RearViewMirror.)
RE: Euthanasia?
(17-04-2017 10:56 AM)whateverist Wrote:  RE: Euthanasia?

A: No thanks. I'm in no hurry.

Either you're joking or you missed the point of the original post I put up. Either way, I'm in no hurry to die myself but given the "option" of choosing the time of my death due to what I described above I believe is the only humane way to alleviate someone needlessly suffering because of a belief system, law, etc...

I don't want to live until I'm 97 like my Grandfather. That said... given any unforeseen circumstances there is a chance that I "might" live to that age. No one with the exception of my Grandmother has died before the age of 90 since my Great Grandparents. Our family has no history of any type of predisposed conditions IE: Heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc...
But... "I" might very well be the exception to that rule I'm afraid. Working for the FD puts me at up to 400% more likely to develop certain types of cancer way above what the normal population is exposed to. When we enter a burning structure the chemicals produced: Hcn, H2S, VoC's, etc... all are known carcinogens. Long before the policies that are in place now we would remove our SCBA's during salvage and overhaul. Hell... when I came on the job sometimes we didn't even put on a SCBA just to get the fire knocked down faster. We have learned over time that is obviously not the best approach. That takes care of the inhalation hazard but the issue with just the three chemicals I mentioned above is they are also absorption hazards. Which means they are absorbed into the body through the skin. There is nothing we can do about that.

Hcn has an IDLH of 50ppm. We do not clear the air for SCBA removal until that number has reached 5ppm. Being as I work on the state's only fully staffed Hazardous Materials unit I've made structure fires where Hcn has read 65ppm after the fire has been extinguished. So if it was that bad when we arrived what was it like when the first arriving company made entry into the structure to extinguish the fire?

I realize that is a very long explanation where I could have just said Firefighters are going to die of some form of cancer barring an unforeseen accident or event. I've accepted that fate. So given the option when the time comes to be able to choose how I want to go without adding unneeded suffering to the mix, I'd like that option.

(18-04-2017 05:47 AM)AyameTan Wrote:  Permitting end-of-life choice is the only reasonable conclusion. Some pro-lifers are willing to "compromise" by allowing self-starvation and/or dehydration.

https://youtu.be/ge7dlzMCbos?t=6485

Some also love defining compassion as "suffering with" others. Not only is this incorrect (etymology and meaning are independent), but it is an extremely defeatist attitude that wouldn't even allow for the administration of aspirin. Or anesthetics before surgery.

"Suffering with others". I can see no benefit in that and I certainly agree with you.

I get to decide what my life looks like, not the other way around.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2017, 06:50 AM (This post was last modified: 18-04-2017 06:54 AM by Vera.)
RE: Euthanasia?
(18-04-2017 05:47 AM)AyameTan Wrote:  Permitting end-of-life choice is the only reasonable conclusion. Some pro-lifers are willing to "compromise" by allowing self-starvation and/or dehydration.

How is this in any conceivable* shape or form better or more "moral" or whatever the fuck their objections are? And what the fuck do *their* objections have to do with the life of OTHERS! And what kind of a monster can watch someone die of starvation, all the while being eaten alive by a horrible disease? What is wrong with people?!

Was just recently exposed to such vileness (I don't approve of euthanasia, I don't approve of abortion). Good for you - don't have abortions and die in abject suffering if it comes to this. What right do you think you have to tell others what they can or cannot do or even to pass moral judgements on their choices? Oh, I get it, you've got Jesus in your corner, so your freaking OPINIONS and "feels" matter more than everybody else's.

And *we* are the arrogant and moral-less ones Angry

* conceivable by a normal, not mutilated by religion, cough*motherTheresa*cough brain

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Vera's post
18-04-2017, 06:55 AM
RE: Euthanasia?
(18-04-2017 06:50 AM)Vera Wrote:  How is this in any conceivable* shape or form better or more "moral" or whatever the fuck their objections are? And what the fuck do *their* objections have to do with the life of OTHERS! And what kind of a monster can watch someone die of starvation, all the while being eaten alive by a horrible disease? What is wrong with people?!

Was just recently exposed to such vileness (I don't approve of euthanasia, I don't approve of abortion). Good for you - don't have abortions and die in abject suffering if it comes to this. What right do you think you have to tell others what they can or cannot do or even to pass moral judgements on their choices? Oh, I get it, you've got Jesus in your corner, so your freaking OPINIONS and "feels" matter more than everybody else's.

And *we* are the arrogant and moral-less ones Angry

* conceivable by a normal, not mutilated by religion, cough*motherTheresa*cough brain

Well said

I get to decide what my life looks like, not the other way around.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RearViewMirror's post
18-04-2017, 07:49 AM
RE: Euthanasia?
(18-04-2017 06:50 AM)Vera Wrote:  
(18-04-2017 05:47 AM)AyameTan Wrote:  Permitting end-of-life choice is the only reasonable conclusion. Some pro-lifers are willing to "compromise" by allowing self-starvation and/or dehydration.

How is this in any conceivable* shape or form better or more "moral" or whatever the fuck their objections are? And what the fuck do *their* objections have to do with the life of OTHERS! And what kind of a monster can watch someone die of starvation, all the while being eaten alive by a horrible disease? What is wrong with people?!

They're concerned that allowing choice might lead to a general disrespect for life in general (which is hypocritical, given their stances on war and the death penalty, not to mention health insurance). Some disability organisations are also opposed, because they don't want to be pressured into choosing death.

But all of these arguments ignore the black market in this field that already exists.

(18-04-2017 06:50 AM)Vera Wrote:  Was just recently exposed to such vileness (I don't approve of euthanasia, I don't approve of abortion). Good for you - don't have abortions and die in abject suffering if it comes to this. What right do you think you have to tell others what they can or cannot do or even to pass moral judgements on their choices? Oh, I get it, you've got Jesus in your corner, so your freaking OPINIONS and "feels" matter more than everybody else's.

And *we* are the arrogant and moral-less ones Angry

* conceivable by a normal, not mutilated by religion, cough*motherTheresa*cough brain

Not much to add, except for this:

Religion in general (and Christianity in particular) are designed to perpetuate suffering.

Quote:“The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but knowledge of God.

People tend naturally to assume that if God exists, then His purpose for human life is happiness in this life. God’s role is to provide a comfortable environment for His human pets. But on the Christian view, this is false. We are not God’s pets, and the goal of human life is not happiness per se, but the knowledge of God—which in the end will bring true and everlasting human fulfilment. Many evils occur in life which may be utterly pointless with respect to the goal of producing human happiness; but they may not be pointless with respect to producing a deeper knowledge of God.”
― William Lane Craig, Hard Questions, Real Answers

The first sentence is bad enough, but when coupled with the rest of the quote, especially the final sentence...

And the idea that humans are god's "pets."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like AyameTan's post
18-04-2017, 08:06 AM (This post was last modified: 18-04-2017 02:11 PM by Vera.)
RE: Euthanasia?
Jesus FUCKING Christ!

This is beyond revolting, even if the expression god's pets is as perfect as it is, or at least it should be, perfectly repugnant to any semi-decent human being.

I was having a very similar conversation with my local landlady, how suffering helps us learn and shit like this. WHY would an omnipotent and supposedly loving god figure create a world where we need to learn through suffering?!?!?! And why can't he just show his face* and give us all the knowledge about him that we need? Why the hide-and-seek? How does this all make any semblance of fucking sense?

And why would knowledge of fucking god be the ultimate goal in this universe which is (probably) so much beyond our grasp that even what little we've learnt so far utterly dwarfs (to borrow a phrase from Sagan) our anthropocentric and primitive imaginings to which so many insist on clinging, just because it makes them feel important in a universe where we're less important that the smallest microbe is to us.

But back to euthanasia - if you're capable of watching someone suffer and think that makes them (and you!) a better person, thus removing any need to at least try and lessen their pain or even put a stop to it, you have lost your place in the human race Angry

* Because if it existed and it did, even it wouldn't be able to create a hell as terrible as it would deserve Angry

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vera's post
18-04-2017, 08:10 AM
RE: Euthanasia?
(18-04-2017 08:06 AM)Vera Wrote:  Jesus FUCKING Christ!

This is beyond revolting, even if the expression god's pets is as perfect as it is, or at least it should be, perfectly repugnant to any semi-decent human being.

I was having a very similar conversation with my local landlady, how suffering helps us learn and shit like this. WHY would an omnipotent and supposedly loving god figure create a world where we need to learn through suffering?!?!?! And why can't he just show his face* and give us all the knowledge about him that we need? Why the hide-and-seek? How does this all make any semblance of fucking sense?

Exactly. If suffering is so good, why don't they torture everyone "to make them better people"?

Tracie Harris once mentioned that an aunt said to a family member who had been molested, "It made you a better person!" Wow. Talk about a callous disregard for human feelings.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes AyameTan's post
18-04-2017, 01:00 PM
Euthanasia?
I fail to see benefits of life filled only with agony, nor I see nobility in suffering so I'm pro euthanasia. When person feel that life is unberable then chance to end it should exist.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
18-04-2017, 02:43 PM
RE: Euthanasia?
(18-04-2017 01:00 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  I fail to see benefits of life filled only with agony, nor I see nobility in suffering so I'm pro euthanasia. When person feel that life is unberable then chance to end it should exist.
I'm pro-euthanasia because I don't see it as a decision to be made by government.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
18-04-2017, 09:15 PM
RE: Euthanasia?
(18-04-2017 02:43 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(18-04-2017 01:00 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  I fail to see benefits of life filled only with agony, nor I see nobility in suffering so I'm pro euthanasia. When person feel that life is unberable then chance to end it should exist.
I'm pro-euthanasia because I don't see it as a decision to be made by government.
That's too. Neither I nor gov have any right to force my morals on person wishing to die with dignity.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Szuchow's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: