English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If not, what body should enforce life on people? Should life really be enforced yet not provided for (with health care, food, housing)?

2007-11-26 09:27:40 · 15 answers · asked by chem sickle 3 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

In what circumstances do we allow and even honor people for their decision to quit living?

2007-11-26 09:29:27 · update #1

Until what age should we force new people to live until?

2007-11-26 09:30:34 · update #2

15 answers

i say adults have choice in living or dieing. they have past the time period of being babied and need to learn to live on their own. Children should not get a choice to quit living. one they are naive and young. they have limited knowledge of the world. its society's job to take care of and raise these kids. when they reach adult age and is better educated than they can make the choice to quit living or not. as for welfare. i believe in a world where u earn ur living, if ur just going to sit back and take welfare than u are a burden on society. one should work for their livelihood. However welfare need to be provided for the young and elderly since they cant work yet and need to be protected. as for adults go find a job and earn ur keep.

2007-11-26 09:36:59 · answer #1 · answered by Yujie (^.~)\/,, 2 · 0 1

Honor it? I think if we are starving to death on a raft in the Pacific.
Seriously though, people should be able to end their life - though I think if they are healthy, they should be counselled for possibly treatable depression first.
Children? No - unless they were terminally ill or otherwise in chronic pain. I think they would need to have an age limit, just like voting and drinking. It would probably be more fair to let a chronically ill child decide when to pull the plug than their parents, though. Their parents would be conflicted - and the child would be kept in pain longer as a result. We see too much of that with the current arrangement.
We could have termination places like they did in Omega Man - but without the eating part (that gives me two cannibalism references in one answer!)

2007-11-26 17:36:31 · answer #2 · answered by Amy R 7 · 1 0

No, because people go through serious depression illness, especially as teenagers, where they can't think clearly or rationally, and they should not be allowed to end their lives because of some poorly thought out way to escape from their problems. That's the challenge of life, to work hard to overcome obstacles. If we allow people to cop out and take the easy escape hatch, rather than doing the hard work it takes to make themselves and the world better they should not be honored at all.
There is no sin greater than throwing away the greatest gift God ever gave.

2007-11-26 17:39:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I believe that a truly progressive society would allow its citizens to do what they want with their own lives. That includes providing safe, legal euthanasia for it's citizens.

Ditto for health care.

EDIT: Some of you people appear to think that this person is contemplating suicide. What morbidity! The asker is referring to governemnt assisted suicide. Euthanasia! Did you even read the question?

2007-11-26 17:35:10 · answer #4 · answered by mam2121 4 · 2 0

There are certain things in certain circumstances that society can't dictate.

We know that suicide doesn't solve any problems.....it makes problems for the people left behind.

However the person committing suicide is so far removed from rational thinking he/she commits an irrational act.

Suicide doesn't make sense to the rational thinker that's why you can poise the question.

2007-11-26 17:35:26 · answer #5 · answered by daljack -a girl 7 · 0 1

Well, about three years ago the Japanese government made it mandatory for life insurance agencies to pay people's families for suicides. Kind of like a sacrifice to make their families better off.

2007-11-26 17:33:25 · answer #6 · answered by flamespeak 4 · 2 0

Yes, suicide should be allowed.

Like all of life's decisions, the age where one gets to decide would have to be legislated.

However, I think that the situation is more important than age. Being really bummed out isn't a compelling reason, but being really sick is.

2007-11-26 17:32:19 · answer #7 · answered by The J Man 5 · 2 1

We should not allow people, nor children, just decide to quit living, that is allowing people to commit suicide in most cases. But there really isn't a need for a gov body to enforce it. If man would just love one another, then there would be no reason for man to have a reason to stop living, because there would be support for them, even in all trying times.

2007-11-26 17:32:25 · answer #8 · answered by Kag 2 · 0 4

For a question like this one you should seek a professional that could really help you. Your pain can change to good if you apply your self to help. Everyone has these thoughts sometimes, the point is to fix them threw help.

2007-11-26 17:35:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

they are "allowed" but if your asking how long should people be forced to live by means of modern medicine, i agree with you. That should be addressed.

2007-11-26 17:38:07 · answer #10 · answered by matthound 3 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers