Germany never took this path. What the fuck are you talking about?
Again, this is a stupid argument, and by promulgating it, you show how utterly unable to defend your position you are.
Allowing death and forcing death aren’t close to the same thing. Any more than sex and rape are synonymous.
It’s a vapid argument.
My position is that all life has value, even those lives which are difficult or painful, and that all means necessary should be extended to preserve every innocent life, and furthermore that allowing those who are in pain to end their lives diminishes the value of all human life by promoting the idea that a painful life is not worth living.
Did Terri Schiavo consent to her being allowed to die? What is the difference between her and Gerhard Kretschmar?
No it doesn’t.
This is a good thing and I’m happy it happened.
Except that itdoes. This is the message that we’re sending to future generations - if your life isn’t exactly what you hoped it would be, then go ahead and kill yourself, it’s OK, we won’t judge you, your personal satisfaction is more important than anything or anyone else. If you’re in pain, then kill yourself instead of enduring it. If you’re sad, then kill yourself instead of finding a way to be happy. If you’re unsuccessful, then kill yourself instead of succeeding.
Noone should ever be happy that innocent people are dying.
No it doesn’t.
You’re wrong.
types a lot of things
is frustrated
deletes, types more things
notes that we are not in the Pit
deletes it all
No it doesn’t. That’s goofy. Life isn’t inherently valuable. It’s the quality of that life that has value. A person being burned alive doesn’t have his existence enriched by every second before he dies.
Terri Schiavo was brain dead. Keeping her on support did nothing to improve her existence, because it ended when her brain died.
I’m convinced that you didn’t read the limitations that the law places on individuals who choose to legally end their lives. Otherwise, your statements sound irrational.
It’s may be too late to salvage any meaningful discussion here, but just so y’all know-- this is what happens when Smapti weighs in on assisted suicide for terminally ill people in great pain. (See also related Pit thread.)
The only acceptable limitation the law can place on individuals who choose to legally end their own lives is “individuals may not legally end their own lives”.
No, that’s goofy. The worst conceivable state of existence is preferable to not existing at all.
So you agree that it’s OK for a person to be euthanized without their consent, then.
To no ones surprise, I’m glad this will be law, to give people a choice.
Unfortunately it gives people like me, with life long mental illness, no relief.
Maybe some day.
I’m moving this thread to the Pit and here’s why:
It just doesn’t fit well in this forum. Some may say or think that it doesn’t have to be moved, but the reality of it is: This subject is a very, very hot button type of issue that is going to cause some rather hostile replies or strongly worded debates. Because of that, I had two choices: Move it to GD or the Pit. I am choosing the Pit since it seems that the OP is more upset at the action rather than wanting to debate any issue regarding it.
By the way, Smapti is a rancid piece of shit, isn’t he?
You totally missed what the law is about. It’s about a choice. It’s not mandatory.
Whatever, it was going to end up here anyway… now Maggie the Ocelet can have her say!
This bill does nothing to change the number of innocent people dying. It does however give the possibility to reduce the amount of time people live in pain.
The fact that you consider death preferable to pain is telling.
For now. We’ve already established above that posters here are perfectly OK with someone using their power of attorney to order the death of a family member.