If it is the last days of a terminal illness, I would not see an ethical issue.
Thr longer the expected time of death, the more difficult that the line becomes, but a person living in constant, excruciating pain is not a very defensible proposition to avoid a pain killer.
For me, at least, it is the intention. Do you want to kill to alleviate pain? It’s wrong. Do you want to alleviate pain while, unavoidabyl causing death? It’s good.
Have you ever been to a pro-life protest? I have. It was completely quiet and peaceful (on the pro-life side).
The day consisted of a large group of people (around 75% women, 25% men) sitting quietly outside a courthouse holding signs. The ‘other side’ spent the day shouting at the protestors through a bullhorn, calling them bigots & racists, stealing their signs, etc.
I’ve really not seen the hate from the pro-life side that most dopers talk about on here. I’m sure there are some horrible pro-life people who have hurt people; there are people like that everywhere. But from what I’ve seen it’s a tiny minority.
I’m no fan of Bill O’Reilly, but I recall him talking to then-candidate George W. Bush about his statement that Jesus Christ was his favorite philosopher. O’Reilly asked what Jesus would say about the hundreds of executions that Bush had presided over as the governor of Texas. Bush waffled and said that he didn’t think Jesus had voiced an opinion one way or another. O’Reilly then pointed out that since Jesus was a victim of capital punishment he would likely be against it. The antagonism ended there, but I’m curious how W. would have talked his way out of that one.
I’ve seen them parked outside of the local Planned Parenthood office screaming at every woman that walks in regardless of whether they are pregnant and seeking an abortion or not. I yell at them from my car to leave the women alone and worry about their own families. I’m sure they take my advice as well as I would theirs.
No, the reality they just don’t are perfectly fine with black people being murdered by police, and come up with outright lies that contradict reality to justify ending those lives so they can get back to harassing women. There’s no way any reasonable person will believe that a person on the ground sobbing and begging for their life with their hands up is going for a gun, and there’s video of so many incidents with circumstances like that there’s no excuse for claiming something contrary to documented fact. Also, ‘justified shooting’ is a gross attempt to reframe what happens that I’ve seen a lot - it’s common for police murders to not actually involve shooting at all, and instead involve choke holds, beatings, forced administration of drugs, excessive restraint, and other more personal murder methods. But it’s harder to reframe ‘that 13-year-old autistic kid who was already restrained needed to be pumped full of ketamine’ or ‘police continued to apply the choke hold for six minutes after he stopped moving, then put him into restraints, then waited eleven minutes to notice that he wasn’t breathing and call paramedics’ into a justified shooting.
Pro-lifers may well have an invented narrative to justify not being ‘pro-life’ when it involves black people who aren’t fetuses, but it’s transparently false bullshit, not some actual reasonable justification.
Try going to one outside of an abortion clinic instead of picking and choosing one with less vile pro-lifers trying to project a good image. And I’m perfectly fine with counter protesters calling bigots and racists exactly what they are. I don’t buy the modern conservative idea that calling out someone for bigotry is being bigoted.
I disagree. The vast majority of people who say they are “pro-life” are in favor of treating human women as mere incubators for an unwanted fetus, which is a vile and horrible thing to inflict on a person. The entire movement is about punishing women, it’s not just a tiny minority that wants to treat a fetus as a life to punish women for being ‘too slutty’ but not do anything to support the fetus once it grows into a person and to not do anything about outright murders, like the police killings BLM protests against.
There are different meanings of “euthanasia”, too. My vision for the topic is that somebody would argue that their personal position is pro-life and pro-euthanasia, and then anybody who finds that interesting would pick their brains, and maybe everybody would learn something.
I did so with Aji_de_Gallina/Chronos. Chronos did not personally endorse any form of pro-life or euthanasia, but that’s fine too. I learned how the principle of dual effect applies to euthanasia. I hope they learned that painkillers in the palliative care setting probably don’t accelerate death, and so dual effect might not be implicated. It’s very interesting stuff, in my opinion.
I did not want to read people argue about the one true definition of Pro-Life. It seems easy enough to say, “this form of pro-life is consistent with this form of euthanasia”, and then respond to that particular argument; or to say “this form of pro-life is inconsistent with this form of euthanasia”, and then respond to that particular argument.
Mind you, I’m not a moderator and you are not bound by my wishes.
Okay. The form of Pro-Life that I consider to be the most common form of “Pro-Life” is, as best I can tell, entirely consistent with euthanasia, since it’s not worried about the lives of anybody who has actually been born. Which is not to say that all persons hewing to the most common form of Pro-Life will be pro-euthanasia; that form of Pro-Life mandates nothing either way on the subject.
I gathered so much from your post #32. The argument seems reasonable enough: if a person is Pro-Life on the basis of banning abortion qua abortion and eliminating reproductive freedom, they can support euthanasia without being inconsistent.
There’s no reason to debate, nor even to assert, that most people who identify with the Pro-Life movement fall into your argument.
I was using the “most common” label to identify which variant of “Pro-Life” was talking about. As you imply in your OP there are lots of different flavors of it, possibly including people who think it means “is in favor of eating cheese” or somesuch. To make my statement accurate I needed to be clear that I was only talking about the common variant, not any of the outliers.
Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.