i need your answer...?

Question

is euthanasia moral or immoral???? why do you say so?
please answer it seriously...

Answer 1

Thanks for the question. I always wanted to know.
Gives me 7 Pt's adv

Sorry, jokes apart, we all know how hotly debated is the issue.

So the argument is God alone can give death.

Then why do we wage a war - that too on frivolous grounds and for ulterior objectives - and kill thousands of patriots and innocents?

Killing human beings is wrong, a sin. What about killing animals to feed our hunger and sometimes for fun too?

Killing per se is wrong and immoral, and not necessarily because we have no right to kill. On the contrary, there is no duty, no purpose, no grand objectives, not even an argument of larger interests of humanity etc. nor to end any suffering - just no purpose at all can justify killing. Killing as such is immoral, and for God's sake, let no one think God kills any one. If God is there, he too merely ordains the lifespan, he doesn't prescribe death.

Answer 2

No easy answer. If an animal is suffering, we have him put down without questioning it. Yet when a human is suffering, we let them linger indefinitely because pulling the plug (or more controversially actually injecting them or otherwise helping them along) seems immoral. The issue is consent. Unlike pets who can't say how they're feeling, so we have to make decisions for them, a human being that can reason for themselves should have a right to make their own decisions. I think that if a person says they want to die, or if they can't speak but have made a living will stating that they want to die when the time comes (terminally ill, suffering, on life support etc), to pull the plug, that their wishes should certainly be respected & adhered to. But what do you do in the case where they can't speak for themselves or haven't put their wishes in writing? How do you decide? We're not supposed to play God. How do we have the right to take a life? Pulling the plug is different because it's an artificial means of prolonging their life anyway & the natural thing is to let them go (if this is what they want or if the family feels they are suffering unncessarily. In the case of someone terminally ill for instance.) Certain cases, such as comas are tricky because people do come out of them after a long period...

Certainly no easy answers! Not a black & white, right or wrong issue. It's all grey area. Neither moral nor immoral. Playing God usually isn't a good idea. Depends on the circumstances...

If it were me, I wouldn't want to be kept alive only to suffer. But that's me. Everyone has a different outlook. The most important thing is to respect human life.

Answer 3

Every situation that every individual comes across in life is completely unique. Particular events lead to particular events, of which everyone involved has a different perspective on. The best we can do as individuals is speak to other individuals directly impacted by the circumstances that impact us, try and attain all possible relevant viewpoints on the subject, and make a determination of the best action based upon all valid points of view. It is neither moral nor immoral. It cannot be always bad or always ok. Life is not black and white. Trust yourself and those you love, make good decisions specific to each question that arises.

Answer 4

Definition of moral and immoral vary from one person to another, what might be moral to me it can be immoral to you. In case of "mercy killing" some can say it's moral other will differ. I think no one have the right to take someone else life, as long as that person(patient) can hold on let that person live, let the natural course of the body take its way. No matter what... we still "kill" the person, and killing will never be moral.

Answer 5

I have always been in favour of some sort of mercy killing or euthanasia.It seemded logical to me to have an instrument to end someones suffering laid down in the law.However to be confronted with the real thing has made me doubt wether such a law is applicable to certain circumstances and the irrevocable act could be abused or used in the wrong way.

Answer 6

I don't have an answer...

Only avenues of thought...

Which to you value more "life" or "quality of life"

At what point is there no "quality of life"

At what point do you deternmine there is no future?

I think these are difficult for any person to work out on their own and a prime reason why we need to have explicit instruction in regard to our own life so that the Durable Medical POA does not have to be dragged to court by some well wishing relative who thinks otherwise.

For me, I think if I wasn't "me" anymore...unable to function, to recognize, and unable to learn how to ever again I would want it to be over for the people I love because I would hate for them to have to watch me living but truely be dead. Maybe that is playing God. Maybe that is not giving them a chance to nurture.

Like I said...still avenues of thought and there is no right answer.

Answer 7

it dependts on the person. it might be against some people's beliefs, to them it would be immoral. others with their own opinions might think euthanasia is relieving of people of pain. i think it is not anything immoral because it is truly helping someone stop suffering.

Answer 8

I think is immoral because we didn`t create life for taking this right to other person even if this person wants to. God make life and only Him can take it even I believe in miracles.

Answer 9

Nobody has the right, to take somebody else life!! or you'r own life! God gave you that like, and he's the only who can takeit away!!

Answer 10

It depends on your religion.

If you believe that killing is wrong then it too is wrong.