Euthanasia - Legal or Illegal?

I dont see a problem if its consented by the person dying.

But lets be honest, I grew up on a farm. If an animal is in serious pain and unlikely to recover then it gets a bullet..... Hospitals should be more like this, maybe then we wouldnt be so damn over populated.

 

There are two problems with that Almo: 1. If doctors practiced "mercy killings" then the patient wouldn't be able to pay them for it, unless funds were given before the act; 2. People place too much value on human life for any such thing to ever become common place.

I too think that the world is over populated. I think it maybe time for another world war. Pass the nukes to your left and kiss your ass goodbye.

 

Why do you "M word"? Doesn't releasing sperm, and letting them dry up and die equal to taking a life?

 

The combination of the male seed and the female egg are necessary in the creation of life. If each were life on their own, what would necessitate their union? I cannot think of an example of two different lifeforms joining to create a new life form. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I just can't think of one.

 

Not quite what I meant......I guess I was a little vague. Let me try to clarify. What I meant about two separate life forms joining to create a new life form, was the two original life forms conjoined physically to create a new life form, where the two original life forms no longer existed as two separate life forms but created a new one.

 

i have problems with euthanasia just because of the controlled hospital environment it occurs in. i would say PAS is the better way to go, most people with a fatal illness would rather pass in the environment of their choosing. also with euthanasia i do believe that the doctor is essentially killing the patient thus causing a conflict of interest with the oath a dr is required to take. i think it is best to evaluate the person first and if deemed to have a fatal and non curable illness then perscribe them something that will let them pass painlessly in their own home. i think the state of oregon has gotten it right on this issue

 

There are types of frogs that are able to ferment themselves, and produce offspring on their own.

 

For me I am in favour of Euthanasia . But its all a matter of personal choice I would like to think that if I was suffering then my family and loved ones would understand that I would possible need help to acheive this .

But the final act is done alone by yourself you dont have to take the medicine throw the switch , what ever it takes and you can change your mind right up to the end.

The fact that its illegal here in UK means nothing , its illegal to do and sell drugs but people still do it .

Then there is the fact that if you let your pet dog cat whatever suffer then you would be procecuted . I had to put several of my pets to sleep because they were very ill and past the point of quality of life and I am glad I did it as a final act of love .

Delicate subject this one .

 

That's asexual reproduction. Not what I'm referring to.

 

So what? Reproduction is all the same, it always has the same answer=reproducing.

If you can't refer towards a basic point like that, I'm not really understanding that concept...

What I mean is that Stem Cell research is alright, because it isn't basically killing what we call a human (But it is basically abortion) Abortion is what we call moral, you know why? Because the good outweighs the evil.

In abortion, we have two choices, cut the child's life (Embryo) or cut the mother's life (Which will then kill the embryo) Abortion is moral, because we are killing one life to save another, whereas killing the mother would result in two lives being taken for the sake of one.

Euthanasia is the same thing, except on one concept, will the morality outweigh the immorality? or ill it end up in no advantage?

 

No, but it gives a reason why it's moral, to oppose those religious heretics -.-

 

I believe Apophos was referring to a type of reproduction where Animal A and Animal B (rather than mating and spawning an offspring) fuse together to form Animal C, in which case Animals A and B would no longer exist (for C has taken their place).

I'm positive that's not a form of reproduction either as, if you think of it in a mathematical sense, it just wouldn't make sense. The point of reproduction is to pass on one's genes to offspring in an attempt to increase the population of the species. All creatures reproduce with that in mind: to try to keep the species going (it's inherent in our instincts). The problem with this type of reproduction would be that you take two currently living beings, destroy them to be able to churn out 1. You end up losing more than you gain, and the next time you reproduce you would do the same. Certainly, if this type of reproduction DID exist somewhere, this species is long extinct as they died of reproduction (ironic, I know).

Just trying to clarify what apophos was talking about (I think), and point out (as he did) that this type of reproduction does not exist.

 

So you're saying that animals that are born through this processa re basically clones right? But what happened to Adaptation? What happened to individual? Even if they are clones, they are still seperate beings that touch, think, and feel.

You can't resent that asexual reproduction is any different from regular reproduction because it still has the same effect: Reproduction...

Can we please stop talking about animals?

Anyways. Euthanasia is widely used nowadays, have you ever heard the term, "Cutting Lifesupport" ? It basically means the family chooses what will happen to the life. Why didn't they wait it out? Why didn't they do something else? If there's no hope, should we wait for hope?

Euthanasia doesn't solve this concern. The person is still alive, but we'll never know if he/she'll wake up. But yet, doctors allow this, cutting life support is euthanasia in a way, because the victim being supported has no say in things.

So why cut life support?

 

That is precisely what I was talking about. And my original post was in response to Kamage talking about masturbation being some form of taking a life because the sperm would "die". All I was saying is that the two (sperm & egg) coming together were needed in the creation of life, not that each were it's own lifeform.

 

Yea I got what you meant when you said it apophos and I agree. Masturbation (regardless of what you think of it morally) is different from abortion (purely from a scientific standpoint) because a sperm alone is not a life. It is dependent on an egg to even have a chance at becoming a life. If a sperm alone constituted a life, everyone who had sex would be a serial killer, as when a man ejaculates, thousands of sperm enter the vagina and only one (though sometimes a few more in the case of twins, triplets, etc.) actually survive to fertilize the egg.

That's not the only time Euthanasia is given. Many times victims of diseases that are incurable and are incredibly painful have asked for Euthanasia to lessen their burden. If you are struggling with a debilitating, painful disease that will ultimately kill you anyway, is it wrong to ask someone to end your life sooner and thus end your suffering? THAT'S where the real debate lies.

 

Actually, when they ask for euthanasia, it's not euthanasia anymore...

 

If they ask for it does it become assisted suicide? By law, all forms of assisted suicide, with the exception of officer-assisted-suicide, it considered murder.

(NOTE: Officer-assisted-suicide is doing something like holding a gun at a cop with the intention of getting shot and killed.)