2006-12-31 03:50:30 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Immoral. No matter how much pain you think the person is in, it's still killing them. They will die when it's their time.
2006-12-31 03:53:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Most on the religious right do not believe that someone has the right to end their own life if they choose to do so. That is why it is considered immoral. The religious right is extremely hypocritical in the sense that they are against euthanasia and abortion (they see both as murder), but yet they are for the death penalty.
2006-12-31 03:55:56 · answer #2 · answered by 3rd parties for REAL CHANGE 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
We euthanize animals when they suffer, because it is the "right" thing to do. But when it comes to a person making that decision for himself or herself, then it is wrong and immoral. It is best to let a person suffer the ravages of a prolonged terminal illness. But if Fluffy has the same condition, God-forbid he have to go through it!
Assisted-suicide should be the right of every person. Just like abortion, it is making a decision about your body and your future. If my choice is to die with dignity, then who should have the right to tell me otherwise?
2006-12-31 03:55:01 · answer #3 · answered by Jackson Leslie 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Its really quite simple. Ask yourself the question, "Are you or are you not a slave?"
If you ar, then clearly others make the decision for you and morality is not relevant.
If you are not a slave then you have control over your own life including the right to contract with others for assistance to end your own life. With such personal right morality doesn't apply.
2006-12-31 04:05:58 · answer #4 · answered by Randy 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I use to think it was completely, morally wrong. I've suffered through losing someone close to me. I understand the other perspective much better.
I honestly don't know.
Watching, living, loving, and being a part of that kind of experience is a really terrible ordeal.
2006-12-31 03:54:08 · answer #5 · answered by JC 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can make an argument for it, but I assure you it's a slippery slope that could lead to people over 65 getting euthanized for being so unfortunate as to catch the flu, and then eventually it could get lowered to 55.
Especially, when liberals determine that a person doesn't have a so-called "quality of life" according to some arbitrary standard determined by them.
I tend to agree with Laysha.
2006-12-31 03:53:19 · answer #6 · answered by Joseph C 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is neither moral or immoral itself rather morality is based on the manipulation, or use and earn. If it for the social purpose and livelihood, it is good and it is earned by cheating or smugling it is immoral. On the otherhand, if you spends money for the luxerous life style without addressing hunger, and starvation, and disease, that is too much immoral.
2016-03-29 01:59:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Watch "The Life of David Gale" with Kevin Spacey and then give your opinion. The movie pretty much sums up this subject.
2006-12-31 05:44:41 · answer #8 · answered by Grooviecat 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the situation is a very delicate one that would need to be looked at case by case to come up with an answer.
Although I am a supporter of it for those whom are in need if this, so long as it is considered as only a last result with no return.
Again, case by case ...
2006-12-31 03:55:47 · answer #9 · answered by bambambrennie 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends on the given situation. If the subject is suffering and there's absolutely no hope, and it's in agreement from the family...perhaps.
But keep in mind, this is how they put animals to sleep.
2006-12-31 03:53:50 · answer #10 · answered by Rewind 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋