Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The twins in Belgium which prompted this thread were NOT minors. They were 45 years old, deaf from birth and going blind.
As much as I support the right of each of us to determine how and when we die, I draw the line at minors. EEEE Gads, every parent in the world would raise their hand at one time or another to have the state come take away their kid.
The story just had me thinking about how going blind was viewed by these 45 year old men as enough reason to want to die. I suffer from macular degeneration and have been getting shots in my eyeballs every 30 days for almost 4 years to keep from going blind. Of course I've contemplated my life without eyesight but I don't think I would want to die over it. But maybe if I was also deaf and without family it might be another thing. Still I know folks with severe disabilities who seem to have some joy in life.
no kudzu. My question to you as the maker of the OP: Were these Belgian twins, at a point in their lives, minors? In addressing this question you posed in the OP of...
Quote:
Would you advocate for a more liberal assisted suicide law in this country like in Belgium?
... and in my original comment to the OP I was simply being circumspect as to a "minor" situation also needing to be addressed. Having said that and participated in this topic I see nothing that changes my original and "personal moral opinion".
I contended that this discussion would become entrenched in debate involving secular and religious positions that are different for all people. And so it has. It's a debate with no resolution in debate, only in law. And in that process there are varying laws in different states on the books.
The one thing I notice is the religious influence some people demonstrate in their rigid positioning. If you truly believe in a "wall of separation between church and state", as has been adopted in this country, such rigid positioning is out of place. There are sufficient MORAL grounds involving respect for life itself and a 'quality of life' consideration to stake ones' position to and NO NEED to use religious doctrine. We need to remember that a "moral" discussion is one based upon a 'perception of right and wrong'.
In fact, religious beliefs are one influence factor that goes to formulating ones "personal" MORAL OPINIONS for many and that's how it should be. Failure to act so to BRIDGE their belief to support a MORAL POSITION, places people, in many folks minds imo, in the position of directly advocating a religious argument!
Religious arguments may and do fall upon deaf ears for those of dissimilar beliefs. We should ONLY be considering "secular" arguments here. Religious beliefs, of course, have a validity, BUT ONLYin establishing one's moral stance, if one deems to so do. This should be A MORAL DEBATE OF SOCIETAL RESPONSIBILITY we should be engaged in, because we are a society of SECULAR LAW. And that SOCIETAL RESPONSIBILITY must consider peoples' sentiments about 1) the sanctity of life and 2) the quality of life. All of these considerations inexorably tug at the conscience of personal religious beliefs, but I strongly suggest that DIRECT religious beliefs such as posting scripture references to justify a position not be used. I've been very cautious to carefully state these points so as NOT to offend those of sincere religious belief.
That's the thing, you've said you are against assisted suicide, but haven't presented an argument to defend your stance. That's not debating the issue.
I haven't?..How about give them an inch and they'll take a mile..The "arguments" you've presented have been purely based on your own feelings and emotions, how does that support YOUR stance on this subject claudhopper?..My argument all along has been that suicide should be a PERSONAL thing, and if you can't keep it personal, then don't expect someone else to step in and do it for you..That's no longer suicide, that's murder whether you want it or not..I feel I'm absolutely "debating" this issue claudhopper, but it would seem that because I don't agree with legal murder (assisted suicide if you prefer), that you and others have decided that what I have to say has no validity. I would think in a debate, every ones opinions would be as valuable as the next, whether they are agreeable or not, it wouldn't be much of a debate if we all felt the same would it?
Last edited by purehuman; 01-27-2013 at 11:57 AM..
So no, purehuman, I am not going to try to push my view point on you. Even though you are trying so hard to push your views on others. If you do not feel that assisted suicide is right for you that's just fine. I would never persuade you otherwise. So please, state your beliefs all you want, just don't tell others they are wrong because you do not have the right to dictate to others what they have the right to decide to do with their lives for any reason. And I don't think anyone is trying to change your mind as much as your attitude that you seem to feel you have that right.
What views do you feel I'm trying to "push" on others Minervah? Do I not have the same right to express my opinions as you?.My beliefs ARE what I've been stating Minervah... just as you are yours. This debate is about whether you "avocate for assisted suicide" and I don't. My attitude about what I believe is no different than anyone elses about what they believe...If I agreed with "assisted suicides" would you consider my attitude as a good one?
What views do you feel I'm trying to "push" on others Minerva? Do I not have the same right to express my opinions as you?.My beliefs ARE what I've been stating Minerva... just as you are yours. This debate is about whether you "advocate for assisted suicide" and I don't. My attitude about what I believe is no different than anyone else's about what they believe...If I agreed with "assisted suicides" would you consider my attitude as a good one?
You are the one who brought up pushing, not me, purehuman. No one is telling you not to believe in being against assisted suicide expect for what you are reading between the lines in what others who don't share your beliefs are saying. No one is telling you you cannot express your beliefs or express your opinions. Stop trying to play the victim here because no one is buying it,pure human.
The debate is not even whether or not people advocate for assisted suicide,pure human. Read the OP's original question which is "Would you advocate for a more liberal assisted suicide law in this country like in Belgium?" A more liberal assisted suicide law. The emphasis on the liberal is mine but the word was placed there by the OP not by me. So the question indicates it does not mean putting in place an assisted suicide law where there is none or removing them in the places where they exist.
If I am wrong about that I hope the OP will correct me.
You don't believe in assisted suicide. Fine. So you wouldn't advocate for more liberal assisted suicide laws or any assisted suicide laws. That's fine too. But this is not the place to do that. Your answer to the OP's question is a simple "no." For anything else I suggest you start your own thread debating the issue of assisted suicide for or against. There you can debate the issue to your heart's content.
Just three things I would suggest for you, first make it a true debate and allow people to voice their opinions both pro and con, second, if you quote statistics from other sources, make certain they are reliable and can be verified and are not from biased materials third try and stick to the subject and if someone tries to hijack the thread for their own agenda, keep them on track.
And one more time, slowly and carefully. If you do not believe in assisted suicide that's fine, great, wonderful. Don't ever do it. Die in whatever way you choose. But don't presume to tell anyone else what they are allowed and not allowed to. You do not have that right. I do not have that right. No one does.
Please, go ahead purehuman, and live your life any way you want. And let others live theirs. That is all I have to say to you but I have a feeling you will have more to say because frankly, I just don't think you just don't get it.
And one more time, slowly and carefully. If you do not believe in assisted suicide that's fine, great, wonderful. Don't ever do it. Die in whatever way you choose. But don't presume to tell anyone else what they are allowed and not allowed to. You do not have that right. I do not have that right. No one does.
Please, go ahead purehuman, and live your life any way you want. And let others live theirs. That is all I have to say to you but I have a feeling you will have more to say because frankly, I just don't think you just don't get it.
Where it comes to "assisted suicide" we do have the right to decide if we will allow that legally or not.
I haven't?..How about give them an inch and they'll take a mile..The "arguments" you've presented have been purely based on your own feelings and emotions, how does that support YOUR stance on this subject claudhopper?..My argument all along has been that suicide should be a PERSONAL thing, and if you can't keep it personal, then don't expect someone else to step in and do it for you..That's no longer suicide, that's murder whether you want it or not..I feel I'm absolutely "debating" this issue claudhopper, but it would seem that because I don't agree with legal murder (assisted suicide if you prefer), that you and others have decided that what I have to say has no validity. I would think in a debate, every ones opinions would be as valuable as the next, whether they are agreeable or not, it wouldn't be much of a debate if we all felt the same would it?
Okay. Well it's been said before on this thread, that if I ask you to help me die, that is not murdering me. Murder is against my will. You would have the right to refuse, just as another should have the right to assist me, if they so choose, without your approval or permission. It's my life!
Where it comes to "assisted suicide" we do have the right to decide if we will allow that legally or not.
I don't see how anyone can just say no. How can we get a compromise here? Your doctor feels that you would be better off dead, than in your current state - he is either agreeing with you, or making that decision on your behalf. Your family seeks a second and third opinin to help them in this decision. If they conclude the first doctor is right - why would anyone deny them the ability to put that person at rest? I just cannot understand this obstanance.
What kind of checks and balances would it take for you to be comfortable with this decision? If the answer is none, then we are polarized.
What kind of checks and balances would it take for you to be comfortable with this decision?
If the answer is none, then we are polarized.
Well... didn't we know that from the outset? Some will *never* be comfortable.
As for checks and balances... this is why clearly stated intention is so important.
BEFORE any situation develops declare our views, declare our desires, declare our expectations.
I'd prefer to see that done within the framework of a standard protocol...
but whatever manner you or I might choose to do so... there will be clarity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
