[Euthanasia]

[FireHawk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthenasia

 

Should euthenasia be allowed? Read above link for more info.

 

And now its not a youth group in Asia for all you people that wanna be funny...

[tsinoitcelfer]

Hmmm.....

 

 

no.

[azemkamikaze03]

It's tough to really say. I mean on one hand I don't believe in killing a person at all. I'm anti death penalty, anti abortion and so essentially I'd be anti assisted suicide but I have compassion for the fact that the soul inside that body might be suffering and to put him or her out of the misery might be the best thing to do. But the fact of the matter is simple. If a person doesn't have it written in black and white with a signature you can't kill them. You just can't. You don't have that right to decide whether a person can live or die just because they can't function correctly anymore. Some people are in Coma's for years and years and then wake up one day. So in cases like that you just don't have the right to decide whether someone can live or die. If we are talking about someone who is brain damaged, you wouldn't kill a mentally retarded person would you? No. You have to be tough and kinda remove emotion from the issue.

[Breakdown Conspiracy]

ethenasia or euthenasia? lol

anyways I think if the person is going to die anyway, or there is not way to save a patient who is critically going to die in a matter of days, yes I think it is right, if a person wants rest. Eg: In WW2

where a soldier on the field was missing a leg, yet was going to die, thus they just give him a load of morphine to give him an easy death. I kno thats in different context but you get my drift.

 

But i do say NO when people just want an easy way out, even thought there are treatments that will work and cure them.

[_deemy_]

I say yes, if there is no possible way for the person to overcome their illness/disease and that person has specifically stated that that's what they want to happen.

[Usiel]

Me too. I think euthanasia should be allowed for critical moments. After all, in these kind of cases, the only thing you do is to finish with a pain and a death that will come anyway. Much people think that this is horrible. They think that nobody has the privilege to take lifes away. I respect them, 'cos everybody is free to think whatever they consider the best one, but from my point of view, it's even worse to keep someone alive when the situation is critical and this person isnt a human, it's someone in a vegetal's state. That's horrible, maybe not for the patient, who cant do anything, who cant recognize anything and anyone. It's terrible, an alive nightmare for the family. Sincerely, if one day something similar happens to me, I hope my family dont have a doubt about what it's better, and I hope they "wake up quickly of this nightmare"

[Peterdea]

i think they deserve the choice if they will die slowly and can say goodbyes to more people or just choose to end it due to the pain. A slow painful death would suck beyond anything.

[Jeezy]

I would say yes...I just think it depends on the individual case

[MayaTheVampire]

I say yes, if there is no possible way for the person to overcome their illness/disease and that person has specifically stated that that's what they want to happen.

 

I think exactly what you said

[Linkin_lp_park]

Yes, if a person says it's enough, and there is no way out of the disease, and they are happy with it, it's their discision

[Black_Angel]

Yes, if theres no chance of the person ever recovering.

[Holy War]

Pro-Choice...personally let them do what they choose with their life if indeed it is their choice I see no reason to say no...on another note Kevorkian wasn't all that bad, he was just controversial in his ways...mix in a dash of religion and you have a full out riot on your hands.

[LPShinodaFM]

I see Hawk is back with his polls.. xD

 

Well I chose undecided, but I'm leaning towards the Yes part. If a person is in so much suffering and there really isn't much more that can be done to cure the person then why let a person and his/her family/friends suffer more? But, if a family can no longer support the medical fees of a sick family member and the entire family is going in debt for someone who MAY still be cured, I'm pretty unsure. So I'm like leaning to the yes side, depending on situation.

[azemkamikaze03]

Well, see you guys haven't touched on the fact of whether or not someone has stated they would rather die. What if the person hasn't stated they did or didn't. Do people/family have the right to determine whether or not someone else can die?

[Holy War]

Well, see you guys haven't touched on the fact of whether or not someone has stated they would rather die. What if the person hasn't stated they did or didn't. Do people/family have the right to determine whether or not someone else can die?

 

Wasn't in the question, but since it was brought up...Depends on the situation, such as the one in Florida (I believe it was Florida) where the lady was braindead and they wanted to let her go and then the court got involved though it was the family's choice and no matter what it is a difficult decision to make. I've been in the situation, though I lucked out and didn't go braindead but had I my family would of had to make the decision to let me go or keep me as I lay and suffer...I would hope they would pull the plug. If they don't want too, again pro-choice their decision should stand.

[Linkin_lp_park]

Lol you double posted, delete one

[untitled]

I say yes, if there is no possible way for the person to overcome their illness/disease and that person has specifically stated that that's what they want to happen.

pretty much the same way i think about it:)

[azemkamikaze03]

Wasn't in the question, but since it was brought up...Depends on the situation, such as the one in Florida (I believe it was Florida) where the lady was braindead and they wanted to let her go and then the court got involved though it was the family's choice and no matter what it is a difficult decision to make. I've been in the situation, though I lucked out and didn't go braindead but had I my family would of had to make the decision to let me go or keep me as I lay and suffer...I would hope they would pull the plug. If they don't want too, again pro-choice their decision should stand.

 

So then your for abortion...right?

[LPShinodaFM]

lmao don't even start on abortion azem

[Holy War]

So then your for abortion...right?

 

If the circumstances behind it are right. If someone is just irresponsible, then no...but say they got raped and had no choice in the matter, then yes. I don't want to hear the "there's adoption" crap either, I've known people who were adopted and that can either go good or bad...usually bad, not all families who adopt are good families. I live in the USA (as I'm sure some of you live), freedom of choice...as much as one may disagree with it, it is in the long run someone's choice and we should respect that regardless of personal opinion on the matter...or we could argue it, create a anti-*argument here* club and take our fight to congress and completly destroy the reason this country was created...again.

[DarknessLover]

I really appreciate what Dr."Death" did. HE saved lots of people from there misery, and sent them off on a great afterlife. The family were probably paying 1000's a year to keep the person alive and for waht? to just have them lie there with no life?

 

I say Yes

[littleblackstone]

I say yes, if there is no possible way for the person to overcome their illness/disease and that person has specifically stated that that's what they want to happen.

 

I agree.

i'm not going to rant about it so... i just say i agree.

[azemkamikaze03]

If the circumstances behind it are right. If someone is just irresponsible, then no...but say they got raped and had no choice in the matter, then yes. I don't want to hear the "there's adoption" crap either, I've known people who were adopted and that can either go good or bad...usually bad, not all families who adopt are good families. I live in the USA (as I'm sure some of you live), freedom of choice...as much as one may disagree with it, it is in the long run someone's choice and we should respect that regardless of personal opinion on the matter...or we could argue it, create a anti-*argument here* club and take our fight to congress and completely destroy the reason this country was created...again.

 

Ok, well here is the thing. Since 1996 there have been over 1.40 million abortions in American each year. That's a little over 4,000 a day. Now in terms of rape, where I see compassion, only 1 percent of rape victims ever become pregnant. So keep in mind they are the extreme minority. Now, in law you can’t say only rape victims should be allowed to the right of an abortion. That plays in discrimination against an vast overwhelming 99 percent majority. You can either be all for or all against abortion. That’s just how it is; a law against such a large majority is suicidal. The reason rape abortion rate is 1 percent is because they use emergency contraceptives the day after to stop any possible fertilization (which imo fertilization is the begging of life) so once they prevent fertilization they don’t have to worry. I couldn’t find any strong statistics but I can only assume that the 1 percent that has an abortion where a group of people who after they were raped waited instead of going to the doctor. There are other ways to prevent pregnancy such as that prevo-nova(?) shot. Which is waaaay more practical than just waiting until you have a baby to decide to kill it.

 

The important thing is to look at the subject without an emotionally charged opinion. There are SO many resources to prevent pregnancies. Shots, contraceptives, even emergency contraceptives. So, in the terms I might have a bit of an understanding how in an extreme case such as rape would lead to an abortion but it’s in the minority and way to few to pass a bill on it. It would only justify and give everyone else the right to get rid of unwanted children just because they weren’t “ready”.

 

This ties in to our main topic because a family does not have the right to end the life of anyone. The arguments you guys put out is a pure contradiction. On one side people say someone on life support suffers while on the other they say they are brain dead and don’t have a chance of survival so just get rid of them because they waste money. Now you have to be fair, it’s either people are suffering while being brain dead(which means if they are brain dead they can’t really feel pain like we would think) or they are not suffering and just really are a burden financially. In my honest opinion I think, unless it is written in a will, the government should be responsible for life-support. It’s an ambitious thought I know, but of course there will be families who simply can’t afford that but life shouldnt be based off how much money you make. If you are in a coma, and your parents have to choose between pulling the plug or being able to eat for the next week wouldn’t you pray there would be someone who could intervene and help monetarily? Government funding should be aimed towards these kinds of necessary things. And again, you can’t you just cannot allow a family to make the decision. Say for instance you have life insurance valued at over 1 million dollars and a wife who may be greedy knows that. She will pull the plug before she says wait and see if he comes to. There are no laws that will ever be passed against greedy wives. If I pass a law allowing euthanasia to happen I have to allow every family to have that option not just families I feel have good intentions.

 

 

[FireHawk]

Ok, well here is the thing. Since 1996 there have been over 1.40 million abortions in American each year. That's a little over 4,000 a day. Now in terms of rape, where I see compassion, only 1 percent of rape victims ever become pregnant. So keep in mind they are the extreme minority. Now, in law you can’t say only rape victims should be allowed to the right of an abortion. That plays in discrimination against an vast overwhelming 99 percent majority. You can either be all for or all against abortion. That’s just how it is; a law against such a large majority is suicidal. The reason rape abortion rate is 1 percent is because they use emergency contraceptives the day after to stop any possible fertilization (which imo fertilization is the begging of life) so once they prevent fertilization they don’t have to worry. I couldn’t find any strong statistics but I can only assume that the 1 percent that has an abortion where a group of people who after they were raped waited instead of going to the doctor. There are other ways to prevent pregnancy such as that prevo-nova(?) shot. Which is waaaay more practical than just waiting until you have a baby to decide to kill it.

 

The important thing is to look at the subject without an emotionally charged opinion. There are SO many resources to prevent pregnancies. Shots, contraceptives, even emergency contraceptives. So, in the terms I might have a bit of an understanding how in an extreme case such as rape would lead to an abortion but it’s in the minority and way to few to pass a bill on it. It would only justify and give everyone else the right to get rid of unwanted children just because they weren’t “ready”.

 

This ties in to our main topic because a family does not have the right to end the life of anyone. The arguments you guys put out is a pure contradiction. On one side people say someone on life support suffers while on the other they say they are brain dead and don’t have a chance of survival so just get rid of them because they waste money. Now you have to be fair, it’s either people are suffering while being brain dead(which means if they are brain dead they can’t really feel pain like we would think) or they are not suffering and just really are a burden financially. In my honest opinion I think, unless it is written in a will, the government should be responsible for life-support. It’s an ambitious thought I know, but of course there will be families who simply can’t afford that but life shouldnt be based off how much money you make. If you are in a coma, and your parents have to choose between pulling the plug or being able to eat for the next week wouldn’t you pray there would be someone who could intervene and help monetarily? Government funding should be aimed towards these kinds of necessary things. And again, you can’t you just cannot allow a family to make the decision. Say for instance you have life insurance valued at over 1 million dollars and a wife who may be greedy knows that. She will pull the plug before she says wait and see if he comes to. There are no laws that will ever be passed against greedy wives. If I pass a law allowing euthanasia to happen I have to allow every family to have that option not just families I feel have good intentions.

 

 

 

 

GREATEST. LPF. POST. EVER.

[LPShinodaFM]

The sad thing about law is that... it's a law. And it's going to make the final decision. It will only look at it from one way, the most broadest way possible. Yet there are still going to be perspectives unheard and unsatisfied. So if the law makes a statement, you are categorized into illegal or legal. And sometimes things are legal when they are more profane and unforgivable than some illegal things. And there are going to be times when legal and illegalness are undefined. There are so many situations that law cannot make the most justice decision.