[Euthanasia]

[azemkamikaze03]

GREATEST. LPF. POST. EVER.

lol thanks

[allieking]

i think it should be made legal aslong as the person has gone through a legal process to say they want to die and that they are of sound mind. if you had a dog and it was terminally ill you would have it put to sleep, why don't humans have the same right, isn't that better then dying in pain and with no dignity?

[Holy War]

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.

 

 

 

The last thing that needs to have a hand in life is the government. The government would be the first to say "let them go" it wouldn't make any sense for the economy to pay for a hospital debt. I understand your argument, but on the other hand your forceing your thoughts/opinions on someone that doesn't want them (much like a governing body over the life or death of someone). If my coma was that much of a burden on my family I would hope they would pull the plug, but knowing how family is it will never come to that...but if I were braindead I would hope they would. Not in my hands to choose someone's mate in life, they chose the greedy one for a reason and should have seen that comeing. The choice should come down to immediate family of course for this reason, but again they can always be just as greedy as a widow.

[Natsuki]

We put down animals all the time, and they never give their consent. They can't, obviously, so people just decide for them... But this is people we're talking about, so I definately agree with the fact that they have to give their consent and all that, but doesn't that mean that attempted suicide cases should be able to refuse treatement, even though they may not want it? I don't know what it's like in other countries, but most places people are treated regardless of whether they want to be or not.

[HaziLPTonz]

^ generally people only put down the animals if they are either a) dangerous to poeple-ie dogs who kill kids,b) have no way of surviving regardless-like a broken leg in a horse and so on, while it may seem cruel, it is the only way, must we make them suffer til they die "naturally"?

 

 

this is the exact same as "pro choice Vs pro life"

 

and i feel that people should be allowed to CHOOSE, especially how they choose to die. now it cant just be all oine way traffic, that anyone wanting to die can just "die",each case should be reviewed, drugs or w.e is used can be restricted,if we have cases where people are obviously suffering,such as cancer or are in a coma with no hope of return, or in a vegetative state, then obviously people should be allowed to choose to die, as family, or as ANY decent human being, we shouldnt allow them to suffer.now by pain and suffering, i mean LONG term, ie never ending, they will die regardless, not..."ooh iv broken my leg"

 

however, that doesnt mean every tom dick or jane can just kill themselves, cases where people are just "depressed" or are "down" should be rehabilitated, we've got to be reasonable about this, this isnt..."Pro-Choice OR Pro-Life" where its winner take all

 

outrage it may bring, but i think it would be for the best, as aze said,it has its benefits in that it can free up hospitals and so forth(especially for ehre in Australia, hosptial beds are notoriously hard to come by), BUT the decison....and ULTIMATE decision should be left down to either a)the recipient/person or b)next of kin/family or in some way written into a will or a statement witnessed by officials

 

what can go wrong if the euthanasia is monitored TIGHTLY, this is hardly soemthing people would line up to buy by the bucket full,use to kill other people? there are plenty of chemicals ALREADY out there that kill people, not to mention stuff that people already use to take their own lives, in a way,from this,w e can MONITOR whats happening, make it official,keep those from dying needlessly dying(those who take their own lives in seclusion)[looking at stuff such as "government" funded needle centres that distribute clean needles to addicts,decreasing disease spreading and such]