• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Euthanasia

Monserrat

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
1,497
Reaction score
488
Location
US
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
We kill our pets when they are suffering more days then not and it's out of kindness towards them. Why don't we show the same kindness to our fellow human beings? What makes us so different?

Edit: maybe more appropriate in the philosophy forum?
 
We kill our pets when they are suffering more days then not and it's out of kindness towards them. Why don't we show the same kindness to our fellow human beings? What makes us so different?

Edit: maybe more appropriate in the philosophy forum?

We've had this discussion here before, but basically too many people are concerned it would be abused if made legal or it goes against their religious leanings.

Personally, I think people should have that choice available for themselves.
 
I tend to think that it's because we have a natural aversion to killing those we strongly identify with (other humans). I have very mixed feelings about the subject, because although I don't like to watch suffering, I also have a basic belief that there is still something in it that we need, and that we learn, and it goes against much of my life philosophy. I don't mind if other people are willing to kill others to end their suffering, but I know that it would be very difficult for me to do so. Passive actions which facilitate death? No problem. Outright killing someone intentionally, I would have an ethical dilemma on my hands.
 
I tend to think that it's because we have a natural aversion to killing those we strongly identify with (other humans). I have very mixed feelings about the subject, because although I don't like to watch suffering, I also have a basic belief that there is still something in it that we need, and that we learn, and it goes against much of my life philosophy. I don't mind if other people are willing to kill others to end their suffering, but I know that it would be very difficult for me to do so. Passive actions which facilitate death? No problem. Outright killing someone intentionally, I would have an ethical dilemma on my hands.

That is why the decision is not left to the family.
 
We've had this discussion here before, but basically too many people are concerned it would be abused if made legal or it goes against their religious leanings.

Personally, I think people should have that choice available for themselves.

I think they should too. I don't understand why it's praised for animals who are our pets and supposed to be beloved to so many of us but then all of a sudden it's completely wrong if it's a human being.

How can it be so good for one but evil for the other?
 
That is why the decision is not left to the family.

You don't understand what I am saying. I am in the position that could easily put in me the killer's seat. I'm not talking about euthanizing my family. I'm talking about euthanizing a stranger, due to the nature of my job.
 
I think they should too. I don't understand why it's praised for animals who are our pets and supposed to be beloved to so many of us but then all of a sudden it's completely wrong if it's a human being.

There is no reason to accept a claim that euthanasia is wrong to do to a human especially when that moral claim is made by another human.

Now if a non human intelligent entity where to claim euthanasia is wrong I might take it serious
 
I tend to think that it's because we have a natural aversion to killing those we strongly identify with (other humans). I have very mixed feelings about the subject, because although I don't like to watch suffering, I also have a basic belief that there is still something in it that we need, and that we learn, and it goes against much of my life philosophy. I don't mind if other people are willing to kill others to end their suffering, but I know that it would be very difficult for me to do so. Passive actions which facilitate death? No problem. Outright killing someone intentionally, I would have an ethical dilemma on my hands.

That would make it selfish on our part then wouldn't it? For forcing someone to live who has more bad days then good.

I put my dog down over a year ago now and I remember asking the vet, how do I know when it's time? She said when the dog had far more bad days then good. Do you ever think about how many people out there are suffering from physical and mental illnesses, how many of them have more bad days then good and wonder if society is wrong for forcing them to live, for not giving them the option to opt out, to finally be free?

I do all the time and then I wonder what's really stopping us. Why do we force them to go on? Is it what you said, that we just identify too much with other people or does it have more to do with our own personal selfishness in just not wanting to be alone.
 
That is why the decision is not left to the family.

Exactly rational beings should be able to make the decision to decide if there life should be continued or not.

We should allow them to sign off their personhood so when doctors give them the dose they're not hit with murder
 
There is no reason to accept a claim that euthanasia is wrong to do to a human especially when that moral claim is made by another human.

Now if a non human intelligent entity where to claim euthanasia is wrong I might take it serious

Why take it seriously from something non-human?
 
That would make it selfish on our part then wouldn't it? For forcing someone to live who has more bad days then good.
No, it wouldn't be forcing anyone to do anything. We all have a natural lifespan, and just because we may not think it's right that we should still be alive, apparently nature doesn't agree. Imo, if someone really wants to die that badly, they can either actively commit suicide or passively do so. It's not hard to do by just refusing water and liquids.
 
1. We all have a natural lifespan, and just because we may not think it's right that we should still be alive, apparently nature doesn't agree.

2. If someone really wants to die that badly, They can either actively commit suicide or passively do so. It's not hard to do by just refusing water and liquids.

1. Nature would say that our dying pets have maybe 4 more months to live but we don't agree with nature there and euthanize them anyways so the same can be said with one particular species as well

2. That would be even more suffering euthanize them to get it over with if they request it.
 
No, it wouldn't be forcing anyone to do anything. We all have a natural lifespan, and just because we may not think it's right that we should still be alive, apparently nature doesn't agree. Imo, if someone really wants to die that badly, they can either actively commit suicide or passively do so. It's not hard to do by just refusing water and liquids.

But the law in the US in all states as far as I know makes suicide illegal so legally we are trying to force everybody to live whether they want to or not.

Suicide by lack of liquid/food would be a very long process and equally unpleasant from what I hear so I can't agree with you on the lack of difficulty there.
 
1. Nature would say that our dying pets have maybe 4 more months to live but we don't agree with nature there and euthanize them anyways so the same can be said with one particular species as well

2. That would be even more suffering euthanize them to get it over with if they request it.

It still is not my obligation to kill someone, just because they desire to die more quickly than nature would dictate. If they want to kill themselves, I have absolutely no problem with it. If they want to starve themselves to death or die from dehydration, more power to them.
 
But the law in the US in all states as far as I know makes suicide illegal so legally we are trying to force everybody to live whether they want to or not.

Suicide by lack of liquid/food would be a very long process and equally unpleasant from what I hear so I can't agree with you on the lack of difficulty there.

Death from dehydration typically takes about three days, and for much of that time, there is no overt consciousness. As for suicide, even if it's "illegal" what are the consequences for doing it?
 
Because they won't have the species biasness obviously shown in our species from some

Gotcha. So I'd have to assume that unless they were able to cure whatever mental/physical ailment brought upon the desire to end one's life then they would likely view euthanasia as we do towards our pets assuming they would even care for us as much...
 
Death from dehydration typically takes about three days, and for much of that time, there is no overt consciousness. As for suicide, even if it's "illegal" what are the consequences for doing it?

There are none if you are dead. If you survive then you end up locked up for a good while and/or suffering even more in the failed attempt whereas with aided euthanasia you could avoid all of that. If the individual committed suicide in a way that could potentially harm others (like in the attempted the rescue) then the consequences are endangering other lives as well.
 
There are none if you are dead. If you survive then you end up locked up for a good while and/or suffering even more in the failed attempt whereas with aided euthanasia you could avoid all of that. If the individual committed suicide in a way that could potentially harm others (like in the attempted the rescue) then the consequences are endangering other lives as well.

It's not really too difficult to figure out how to kill yourself successfully.
 
We kill our pets when they are suffering more days then not and it's out of kindness towards them. Why don't we show the same kindness to our fellow human beings? What makes us so different?

Edit: maybe more appropriate in the philosophy forum?

That's a very good question, to which there is no logical answer.

It is an unimaginable cruelty and selfishness that we don't offer our incapacitated, suffering human loved ones the same self-sacrificial peace that we offer to our furry loved ones.
 
1. It still is not my obligation to kill someone, just because they desire to die more quickly than nature would dictate.

2. If they want to kill themselves, I have absolutely no problem with it. If they want to starve themselves to death or die from dehydration, more power to them.

1. Of course it doesn't have to be your obligation someone else who doesn't show species biasness like you do can do it. And again nature would dictate that the dog who got it's leg blown off can live another year but yet we interfere with what nature would've intended for that entity and euthanize them to save them the suffering so the same can be said of one particular species of animal. So this nature talk here is pointless

2. Fine by me
 
It's not really too difficult to figure out how to kill yourself successfully.

You would think that but a lot of people survive the attempts, and I saw one cancer patient put out a memo on how to do it without endangering anyone else so there's a bit more to it then one would think...
 
It's not really too difficult to figure out how to kill yourself successfully.

Depends. No decent person wants to leave a traumatizing scene behind them. And many people who want to die are too incapacitated to do so effectively without help.

So if you are decent, or ill, yes, it is difficult. And there's no reason it should be.
 
We kill our pets when they are suffering more days then not and it's out of kindness towards them. Why don't we show the same kindness to our fellow human beings? What makes us so different?

Edit: maybe more appropriate in the philosophy forum?

They shoot horses don't they ?

I'm more curious why the Liberal PC Police haven't flagged the word "uthanasia" as being a derogatory word ?
 
No, it wouldn't be forcing anyone to do anything. We all have a natural lifespan, and just because we may not think it's right that we should still be alive, apparently nature doesn't agree. Imo, if someone really wants to die that badly, they can either actively commit suicide or passively do so. It's not hard to do by just refusing water and liquids.

If it were up to nature, at least half of us in this thread would be dead already.

We interfere with "nature" constantly. Ironically, that is our nature.

Saying that it is ok to force people to suffer because it's what "nature" intended is beyond fallacious. In most cases, the only reason they lived long enough to suffer that much to begin with is because we interfered with nature.
 
Back
Top Bottom