Euthanasia - should it be legal or illegal? (Right-to-Die issues (Schiavo case) being discussed)

She never had proffessional care before, so how do you know her conidition can't be improved? Don't give up before trying.

 

in regards to terri -- i agree with DM. -O)
in regards to euthanasia, i think we all should have the right to die if we see fit.

 

Nobody has the right to decide who dies. So I'm totally against euthanasia!

My opinion:"People don't have the right to end their own lives. It is a precious thing given to us by God, and we don't have the right to take it away. Only he can do that.

Our lives belong to him. So to commit any kind of suicide is to commit sin...

 

I disagree. If you have the right to live, you have the right to die.

It is a precious thing given to us by God...

True.

...and we don't have the right to take it away.

I'm not so sure...if you're stricken with some disease that has no cure and will certainly kill you soon anyway, you should be allowed to skip all the pain and suffering and just let yourself go.

...to commit any kind of suicide is to commit sin

There are exceptions to every rule. There is such a thing as justified suicide, just as there is such a thing as justified homicide.

 

No, we don't have the right to die, we ARE going to die, that is if we don't put faith in Jesus...

Suicide can't be justified, no matter how you see it. If you believe in God, then you also believe in eternal life, right?

So which would you rather have, commit suicide (therefore commit a sin), or keep his commandments and receive eternal life?

 

By justified homicide, you mean killing in self defense?

Well this is pretty straighforward. It doesn't matter how you kill someone, or why you kill someone. If you're aware that you're about to take someone's life, it's considered a sin...

 

All the professional care in the world isn't going to help Terri. I will just prolong her life, a life as, and I'll not mince words, a zombie... the living dead.

 

No, we don't have the right to die,

Of course we do. We as American citizens have the God-given right to life, liberty, self-defense, and the pursuit of happiness. If we have the right to life (as I believe we do), we have the right to decide what to do with that life, even if that means we choose to end it.

we ARE going to die, that is if we don't put faith in Jesus...

No offense, but this doesn't make much sense to me. Everyone dies, whether they have faith in Jesus or not. What are you trying to say here?

If you believe in God, then you also believe in eternal life, right?

Yes.

So which would you rather have, commit suicide (therefore commit a sin), or keep his commandments and receive eternal life?

But who says suicide is a sin? Yes, I know the Bible says it's wrong, but there are exceptions to every rule, aren't there? Besides, there's no commandment that says "Thou shalt not kill thyself if thou art in extreme pain with little to no chance of recovery".

By justified homicide, you mean killing in self defense?

Yep. Hit the nail right on the head.

It doesn't matter how you kill someone, or why you kill someone. If you're aware that you're about to take someone's life, it's considered a sin.

Bull. By NO means whatsoever is it a sin to kill in self-defense.

 

Of course we do. We as American citizens have the God-given right to life, liberty, self-defense, and the pursuit of happiness. If we have the right to life (as I believe we do), we have the right to decide what to do with that life, even if that means we choose to end it.



Well, I'm not an American. If you say that we have the right to life, then I'll just ask you who gave us that right. And since it was HE that gave us the right to live, I would correctly assume that that right isn't ours. Of course we all have free will, we can all decide what we want to do with our lives. But we also have to accept the consequences...Ergo, do the wrong thing, suffer the dire consequences...

--------------------------------


No offense, but this doesn't make much sense to me. Everyone dies, whether they have faith in Jesus or not. What are you trying to say here?



What I was trying to say is because of sin, we all HAD to die at some point. But through Christ's sacrifice AND our faith in him, that untimely fate can be prevented.

----------------------------


But who says suicide is a sin? Yes, I know the Bible says it's wrong, but there are exceptions to every rule, aren't there? Besides, there's no commandment that says "Thou shalt not kill thyself if thou art in extreme pain with little to no chance of recovery".



But it also doesn't say that you CAN take your own life if you're in extreme pain. It says plainly that you shall not kill. To kill is the same as to take a life. So we should take that as in "you shall not take a life under any circumstance"...

------------------------------

Bull. By NO means whatsoever is it a sin to kill in self-defense.



Ahhhh, but why is it so? The only way killing someone or taking someone's life isn't a sin, is when it was ENTIRELY involuntary. If you KNOW that what you are about to do is take someone's life, if you have that comprehension that you're going to end someone's existence, and you still do it, then it's a sin.

 

Oh, and there are exceptions to any rule, with the BIG exception being the bible.

You can interpret the bible any which way, but in regards to its laws, there are no exceptions. If it says "Thou shall not kill", then that's exactly what it means, "you shall not kill"...

 

It [the Bible] says plainly that you shall not kill. To kill is the same as to take a life. So we should take that as in "you shall not take a life under any circumstance"...

It's "thou shalt not murder", not "thou shalt not kill"...a common misconception. I mentioned it before in the gun control thread when someone brought up how it's wrong to kill in self-defense.

If you KNOW that what you are about to do is take someone's life, if you have that comprehension that you're going to end someone's existence, and you still do it, then it's a sin.

So if four men with lead pipes attempt to beat a woman into submission with the intention of raping and killing her, it would be WRONG for her to pull a gun (assuming she has one) and kill them?

You can interpret the bible any which way, but in regards to its laws, there are no exceptions. If it says "Thou shall not kill", then that's exactly what it means, "you shall not kill"...

Again, it's "thou shalt not murder", not "thou shalt not kill". BIG difference.

 

Darth_M_D: Whether or not euthanasia is moral or immoral on a religious basis has no bearing on whether or not it should be legal.

womberty:
Are they filtering out the parent's reasons for opposing their daughter's death because they feel it is emotional and irrational, or is this the case of the "liberal media" putting a spin on the story (in this case, withholding the opposing perspective) so more people will support their viewpoint?

To what extent do you cite a "liberal media" - based on the media as a whole or just one source (CNN)?

I've seen stories on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, and they all explain it this way:

1. The situation at hand.

2. The husband's argument: That Terri Schindler-Schiavo has expressed a desire to die in the past.

3. The parents' argument: That Terri never expressed such a desire, and has not indicated, through a living will or other methods, of her wishes in such a situation.

They usually don't go into any further detail.

TeeBee:
Curious: even the mentally ill (such as schizophrenics) who don't even realize they're sick? Often, suicide attempts are the only thing that get them the treatment they so desperately need but that they would never seek on "their own volition", because they're not in the frame of mind to make the rational choices that are in their best interests.

I do think that those who need it should be advised or persuaded to seek rehab; however, to coerce it seems wrong to me. To make it less dogmatic, it is a violation of one's personal liberties to be forced into rehab, even if the rest of us thinks it's best.

At the end of the day, it is the individual and the individual alone that has the right to determine the course of his/her life, and so long as he/she does not interfere with others' right to their lives, neither the government nor anyone else can interfere. To use lack of mental judgement as an excuse to put someone in rehab is really a sort of arrogance and presumption on our part: Why and how would we know what's best for the person in question when it's that person that's really experiencing what's happening to him/herself?

That's really the thrust of the logic behind arguments for both suicide and euthanasia. Because the patient is the one undergoing the ordeal, it is the patient that has to make the choice, and live (or die) by it.

 

Well this is pretty straighforward. It doesn't matter how you kill someone, or why you kill someone. If you're aware that you're about to take someone's life, it's considered a sin...

So it is better to let someone else sin by having them kill you then you sinning by killing them?

Sometimes I feel that the morally right thing is not always the correct thing. Euthanasia is somewhat the same thing. Although it could be considered killing, and that may be wrong, other circumstances may make it the best decision.

Personally I feel that killing in self defense is morally neutral, but correct for many other reasons.


Also, is there not more to living than simply being physically alive? Is a pulse and warm human bio-mass really all that there is to life for you? Or is there a person, a individual, a soul if you (you clearly do) believe in that? Can you really prove that those things stay with the body in the cases where euthanasia would be honestly considered?

 

Well, I believe the human being is the soul, not that the human being has a soul. When we die, the soul also dies.

These are all my opinions, of course. As to the question of wether if a woman who is going to be raped pulls out a gun and kills the persons who are going to rape her, I truly don't know how God would feel about that. He's the only one who can judge. I'm just stating what the bible says....

You have to understand that the Ten Commandments are no longer valid. When Jesus came on the earth, we started a new order. One of the Commandments is to hold Sabbath, and yet Jesus didn't honour that Commandment.

He said to love everybody.
---------------------------------

So it is better to let someone else sin by having them kill you then you sinning by killing them?

That's my opinion. Why? Because I believe there's more to life that what we have right now. I believe G-D wouldn't want me to kill someone, not even in self-defense.

 

I believe G-D wouldn't want me to kill someone, not even in self-defense.

But that doesn't mean it should be illegal for others to do so.

 

Yeah, ok.

It all depends on each individuals view on the matter, though.

That my opinion...

 

To what extent do you cite a "liberal media" - based on the media as a whole or just one source (CNN)?

I'm referring to a common perception (held especially among conservative) that the mainstream media has a liberal bias. The question is whether certain news organizations' coverage of this case demonstrates that bias.

Let me be clear: a story can offer both points of view and still show a bias to one side, based on the language used.


I've seen stories on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, and they all explain it this way:

1. The situation at hand.

CNN originally characterized the situation at hand as a "right-to-die" case. The term is presumably a liberal one, because most conservatives would not maintain that a person has a basic right to end their life.


2. The husband's argument: That Terri Schindler-Schiavo has expressed a desire to die in the past.

And that she has been diagnosed essentially brain-dead. And they don't mention that his claim is basically hearsay, probably based on a single conversation. Should they go into that much detail? I don't know; maybe they're trying to stay out of the argument.


3. The parents' argument: That Terri never expressed such a desire, and has not indicated, through a living will or other methods, of her wishes in such a situation.

What about their argument that she is alive and responsive? Any mention of the video footage they used to convince Gov. Bush to keep Terri alive?

Or are they merely trying to stick to the legal case?


They usually don't go into any further detail.

True. The very first CNN story I read didn't mention that the husband now has a live-in girlfriend. I don't even remember whether it mentioned the money related to the case. Both of those factors made me question whether this really is about a woman's right to die, or if it's more about a husband's right to rid himself of her.


To be fair, I'm not sure how you would present an unbiased version of this story. How much of each side's viewpoint do you have to cover? To mean, the most biased part of the article is the label "right-to-die" (automatically taking it from the husband's point of view), and to a lesser extent, the omission of certain parts of the parents' case.


You can interpret the bible any which way, but in regards to its laws, there are no exceptions. If it says "Thou shall not kill", then that's exactly what it means, "you shall not kill"...

So, if God told the Israelites that they were never to kill, why did he later instruct them to conquer various people?

Did they attack the city of Jericho without knowing that anyone would be killed?

 

womberty:
I'm referring to a common perception (held especially among conservative) that the mainstream media has a liberal bias. The question is whether certain news organizations' coverage of this case demonstrates that bias.

Quite frankly, I'm dismissive of such claims, since most of the media coverage I've seen, read, and heard seems to be pretty flat and neutral to me. Maybe I'm just not being a good critic, I dunno. But one must also consider what "liberal" really means. Liberalism/conservativism is really in the eye of the beholder - witness TripleB's view of many politicians liberals would consider moderates as full-blooded die-hard leftist freaks. Similarly, I consider Bill Clinton to be a moderate and President George W. Bush to be a solid right-winger, whereas someone like Rush Limbaugh or Pat Buchanan might consider Bush a liberal and Clinton a Communist. It all depeneds on your point of view, really.

CNN originally characterized the situation at hand as a "right-to-die" case. The term is presumably a liberal one, because most conservatives would not maintain that a person has a basic right to end their life.

Well, it is technically a right-to-die case. It most certainly is not a right-to-live case, because originally the patient was being kept alive, so her right to live was never really in question. Now, however, the husband is saying that she should have a right to die, making this a right-to-die case more than a right-to-live.

On the other hand, if from the very beginning (or, at least, an earlier point in time) people had been arguing that she should be left to die, and then her parents come in and say, no! she must live, then it would be a right-to-live case.

Well, that's just the way I see it, anyway. At any rate, do three little words really matter, even in such a charged issue like this?

To be fair, I'm not sure how you would present an unbiased version of this story. How much of each side's viewpoint do you have to cover? To mean, the most biased part of the article is the label "right-to-die" (automatically taking it from the husband's point of view), and to a lesser extent, the omission of certain parts of the parents' case.

Perhaps...I don't have an answer to this anymore than you do. And I don't have answers to the responses you gave for the other two points of the coverage that I brought up. (And I should know, since I am in school journalism. ) I guess what the media should be doing is trying to provide as much information as is humanely possible in print/web journalism, and comprehensive synopses on TV. As far as I can tell, the easiest way to avoid bias charges is to provide a more or less equal amount of information on both sides of the argument.

 

So, if God told the Israelites that they were never to kill, why did he later instruct them to conquer various people?

---------------------

Well, at that time they were TOLD to do so. I hardly think anyone can claim that God came to them telling them that killing in self-defense is ok...

Regardless, God doesn't speak to anyone on a individual bases...He speaks to us through the Bible, and the Bible says it's wrong to take another life.

Again, just stating my opinion...

 

I hardly think anyone can claim that God came to them telling them that killing in self-defense is ok...

If the thief...is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account.

--Exodus 22:2

 

Getting away from the heavy hand of religion that seems to permeate this thread...

How many people have a "Care directive?" in their or their doctors possesion?

It's a simple form availible at your Doctors office for free (mine was anyway) and it states very clearly as to whetther you want 'extrodinary mesures' taken in the event of your being unable to make a desicion in your care (ie artifical life support when there is effectively 'no hope of recovery such as feeding tubes and breathing apperatuses for a diagnoisis of perpetual vegatative state.)

I'm only 37 and have had mine since I was in my mid twenties..

 

Bro, that's the Hebrew scripture. Although it serves as a moral basis and shows us the dealings of God and the Israelites, its laws are no longer valid. It was overridden by Jesus.

That's why the Ten Commandments are no longer valid....

 

You know, this thread is more concerned about the individual's decision to end his/her own life...we should probably go to the gun control thread to continue discussing whether or not it's OK to kill in self-defense.

 

I only believe in pulling the plug on someone if there's a chance they could still live a happy, normal life after the fact. If not, I'd pull the plug and donate their organs to someone.

A life for a life...somehow cruel, and yet merciful, at the same time.

 

I only believe in pulling the plug on someone if there's a chance they could still live a happy, normal life after the fact.

You might want to edit that...