Isn't it strange that as the pro-life campaigners seem to be becoming more influential about banning abortions, that the pro-euthansia people are seeming to become more influential about not prolonging unwanted lives of the terminally ill?
2006-08-06 06:58:35 · 8 answers · asked by Robert W 2 in Social Science ➔ Sociology
I think every case needs to be adressed individually., People are individual, their needs, beliefs, and rights to choose how to deal with their own bodies and destinies will be individual too. One sweeping law cannot cover all possibilities
2006-08-06 07:02:54 · answer #1 · answered by welsh_witch_sally 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I find this a really difficult one to answer. I try to practise a Buddhist lifestyle which should mean that in all instances I would be pro-life but life is not so simple.
I cannot judge someone who chooses to have an abortion because they are unwilling or unable to provide a good life for the child. I know there are other options but I am not sure they are always viable or even preferable. I know I would not be able to have an abortion myself but I cannot condemn others who make that choice.
It is the same with euthanasia, if it is chosen from free will. I could never consider it ethical if the decision were being made for any reason except quality of life.
I guess I would be able to give you a more definitive answer if I had faced either situation in my own life.
I think both situations are really fought on the basis of personal choice and it is why both camps are becoming stronger. The foetus doesn't have a choice but the terminally ill person could...
2006-08-06 10:34:11 · answer #2 · answered by CC...x 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it depends on the situations. Some people say that mercy killing will save resources for others. Some favours letting people with terminal illness live because they are repenting their deeds in their previous lives. Some favours abortions other not. Reasons cited by many are huge and can not be put here in all. However, in my personal views, I go for both according to the situation.
2006-08-06 07:09:39 · answer #3 · answered by ashtre2000 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's all about the issue of personal choice.
An unborn child has no choice about whether to live or die and is an individual person in it's own right. This person has a right to live.
People who are terminally ill can choose that they do not want to live and to die in dignity before their condition makes their life unbearable. They have a right to make the final decision in their lives.
That's the way I see it anyway.
2006-08-06 07:10:36 · answer #4 · answered by Heather 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Euthanasia, abortion, murder, suicide and capital punishment are all against the desire for and respect of life and the sovereignty of God.
Therefore, to be pro-life about abortion and pro-euthanasia are conflicting ideas. One is not "living" unless he has vital signs and one is not "terminal" unless he has no vital signs.
2006-08-06 07:18:05 · answer #5 · answered by Jess4rsake 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It really depends on the circumstances of each case I am for and against in both cases but I am for the death penalty for convicted murderers
2006-08-06 07:05:43 · answer #6 · answered by magicboi37 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
depens on situation you have to take every thing into consideration before you make a dcision pros and cons no one should have to decide in a perfect world but this world is not perfect
2006-08-06 07:08:41 · answer #7 · answered by Elaine F 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes
2006-08-09 05:09:28 · answer #8 · answered by Dirk Wellington-Catt 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋