Pro-choice or pro-life?

Question

Let's go to a near future that may or may not become real.
Let's assume that the majority of people have convinced their congress to pass a law that would say it would be ok euthenize their parents because they can no longer pay for their medical bills. Since the government can also save money on healthcare this would seem logical and rational. The elderly no longer have any money or health to take care of themselves and it now legal for their children to have them euthenized.

Majority says: euthenasia is legal - pro-choice
Minority says: euthenasia is immoral - pro-life

Who's side would you be on?

Answer 1

Good point. I would be pro-life. Some of the answers are amazing aren't they? This society is becoming one of convenience only. If we are inconvenient -- look out! The one person said he doubted if people would chose this for financial reasons only but, I tell you that's the majority of the reason people chose this. You hear all the time with abortion "We can't afford any more children" --- same thing.

Answer 2

Unfortunately, once you allow the pro-death position to take hold, you have no control over it. The Netherlands is a prime example. They were the first nation to legalize abortion. Wow! Reproductive freedom! The right to choose! Then they were the first nation to legalize voluntary euthanasia. Wow! Death with dignity! The right to die! Today elderly people in the Netherlands are afraid to go the hospital when they are ill, because a doctor can legally decide that their life is not worth saving, and give them a lethal injection without their knowledge or consent. In a country where the lives of all are not protected, no-one's life is safe. It's a very slippery slope, and once you step onto it, you better be prepared to go all the way to the bottom.
.

Answer 3

Pro-life always in both cases, euthenasia and abortion. Only God can take someone's life at the right time.

If you have to live the last years of your life conected to a machine, so be it.

The same about abortion, if God allowed a woman to conceive, the most beautiful miracle of life, He is the only one who can terminate it. Terminate a life before coming to the world is like not giving an innocent the chance to be loved by someone else (if not by the mother, someone else will love him/her). How can we ever know if we are not terminating a great genius mind? Someone who would change the world? How can we ever know what purposes God had to that child? Isn't abortion a matter of selfishness in many cases? I wonder if a woman doesn't take this decision solely because of some kind of preasure from family or lack of support from family and partner. Her self-steem gets to the ground to the point she gets desperate, but I know, because I have friends that did that, that they carry the trauma for the rest of their lives. So, before saying: "every woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body", let's analise this: we are not talking about a woman's body, but somebody else who is just asking for the right to live. Before being pro-choice, let's think about ways to prevent pregnancy, let's educate our children at home and in schools how to prevent themselves from pregnancy, and most important, if you know someone who got pregnant and doesn't have support from family, let's embrace her and give her all the psicological support she needs, before simply suggesting the abortion.

Abortion, NO
Adoption, YES.

Answer 4

professional decision. i do not precisely approve abortion as an ethical decision, yet i imagine that if a woman needs to get an abortion, she must have each correct to. i'd not in any respect get one myself until eventually there replaced right into a controversy that could nicely be risky to me and/or the newborn (including ectopic being pregnant) or if I were ever raped (God forbid). I also imagine that no count number what the regulation says, human beings are always going to need abortions. i'd a lot particularly have those human beings get their abortions finished in a clean enviroment by ability of a doctor who's universal with what the hell they're doing than in some back alley with a coat hanger.

Answer 5

Pro-life.

Answer 6

I thought this was going to be about abortion. With regards to euthanasia in this question, assuming we're only talking about elderly people with no money (as stated), I would be pro life with the exception of terminally ill people making this decision for themselves. In my opinion it would be immoral to euthanise old people simply because they didn't have money to pay for their healthcare. It's also pretty obvious that majority would not be for legalising euthansia like this.

Im also astounded at the number of people who clearly had their head up their butt while they read (or more to the point didn't read) this question.

Answer 7

In both cases I'm pro-choice and pro-life. I can choose wisely for myself (NOT for my parent, thank you very much, that's THEIR choice) but I would probably favor life. As to the fetus, well, you can't really distinguish that smear of cells from the mother so she gets to make the call.

The majority probably says suicide is wrong, but the majority is gonna have to pony up some treatment money if they want to get their way. You can't just say a person has to go on living without offering a means to do so.

Answer 8

Pro-

Answer 9

I'd be on the side of choice.

After working in a nursing home for five years and burying more than 75 people, I know that it's only immoral to keep them alive past their times. Euthanasia would be a mercy in many cases.

Answer 10

Do you really think the choice for euthanasia will ever be made based on financial considerations?

I am a pro-choicer. I have also told my family that if something catastrophic happens to me, I do not want to be kept alive indefinitely by life-support machines.