give me some fact that euthanasia is moral although it is not and how come mercy killing is the best way to illuminate pain?
2007-01-21 16:49:00 · 24 answers · asked by Ana Lady S 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Illuminate? Or Eliminate? Oh, you are funny. :)
"give me some fact that euthanasia is moral although it is not"
Way to keep an open mind there, skippy. So basically you're saying : Tell me what you believe, even though it's wrong, so I can mock you for it. Nice try, numb nuts.
2007-01-21 16:53:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
Euthanasia is, of course, murder which makes it morally wrong. This kind of merciful relief is God's decision. God may be dealing with the person's soul and will let him pass on after the person makes that all important decision. While we would look on feeling it is cruel for God to allow such pain, how much more cruel of us to cut his time too short to make the decision?
Euthanasia will, one day, be common place; unfortunately. It will be a result of the misguided decision to legalize abortion. That has already escalated into killing fully developed, healthy babies, at will; called late term abortion.
Our courts and congress pass laws and develope programs that seem good at the time but we fail to look at the history of our 'good intentioned' laws and programs.
2007-01-22 01:13:44 · answer #2 · answered by howdigethere 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I support euthanasia if the person wants it and is absolutely sure they want it. I think it's a lot more moral than to force a dying person to continue living when they no longer wish to. Not sure what the illuminate pain bit you mention is supposed to mean.
2007-01-22 00:54:39 · answer #3 · answered by i luv teh fishes 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Consider that every human is terminally ill, it's simply a question of time and how long we have left to live.
Under what circumstances is taking another human life justified? The Bible doesn't present the case for taking a human life (even your own) as ever being morally acceptable, not even in cases of extreme pain and suffering. Although examples are given (i.e., during wartime, falling on your own sword), they are provided as part of historical narrative, not as a prescribed or endorsed right.
The only case of taking of human life endorsed in the Bible, interestingly, is capital punishment administered by the government and judicial system. I find it fascinating that many times, the same liberals who argue against capital punishment as inhumane violation of criminals' rights also argue for euthenasia as a protection of patients' rights - in direct contradiction of God's Word.
Good question, best to you.
2007-01-22 00:55:28 · answer #4 · answered by Timothy W 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
What do you mean by euthanasia?
By removing the supporting life system? If that is so, you should remove because the person is dead and is only kept 'alive' by the system. Such has no life to begin with.
But if you end because the person does not want to suffer pain, then you shouldn't because everyone has their share of happiness and pain. So you want happiness but want to escape the pain?
Rest assured if you do, you will get due 'compensation" in the next life. You can't escape.
2007-01-22 00:56:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If a pet become seriously ill and is in constant pain with no hope of getting better, most people say it is humane to put the animal to sleep. Why should it be different for humans? If a person's terminal illness has them in constant pain, there is no hope for recovery and the person chooses to die (unlike an animal can), I say they should have assisted suicide as an option.
2007-01-22 00:58:16 · answer #6 · answered by Subconsciousless 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
should we do the same to a failing state?
what of a fallen person?
where do we stop?
all life is precious OR it isnt
we have drugs to end pain ,we have karma in helping others ,
mercey killing is the same as hanging a bad person
it dosnt help them
it gets them from our seeing ,thier gifts ,as the narrow way above lip service
when the least were hungry did you feed them
or mow them down
there is enough pain illumination
what we need to do is end the suffering ,not end the life.
2007-01-22 00:56:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
So this guy wanted to die from 9 to his 20's when he finally died. I think if you are suffering and want to die you should be able to do it.
If i want to kill my self. I can go to cvs buy 40 sleeping pills and a bottle of vodka. Drink a couples of drinks then swallow 40 pills. I have just killed my self. No one would be able to stop me. A suffering patients entire life is based on a machine and his enjoyment of pain. This person is not able to do that. Even if that is what he wants. To you that is fair?
2007-01-22 00:54:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is a choice of the one being terminated. If they can not communicate in any way, then it is the choice of their kin.
Euthanasia, like abortion, is a tricky issue. It all comes down to choices and individual responsibilities, not government being oppressive.
2007-01-22 00:57:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If that is what they desire then yes it is ok.
Plus, if there is no "life" in a person. That literally all their organs and vitals are being supported by machine. They are already dead.
It is not moral or ethical to leave them in that situation. Their spirit has already passed on.
2007-01-22 00:54:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋