+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 96

Thread: The Right to Die

  1. #61
    australia au queensland
    Location: QLD, Australia, Southern Hemisphere, Earth, Sol System, Orion Spur, Milky Way
    Posts: 10,476

    Default

    Euthanasia is the killing of someone to alleviate their suffering.

    How about you stop being so ignorant and actually learn something?

  2. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panzerkampfwagen View Post
    Euthanasia is the killing of someone to alleviate their suffering.

    How about you stop being so ignorant and actually learn something?
    I sympathize with your suffering, Pqnzer. So, watch out. Some might want to alleviate your suffering. And, any denial that you're suffering can be ignored. By your logic, if I decide you're suffering and I decide to kill you, it's the same as assisted suicide. Now, that's idiotic, Panzer.

    The only ignorant poster on this thread is you. Euthanasia, as in Hitler's Germany, had nothing to do with relieving suffering, did it? I'm sure that like you, the people who killed children with disabilities tried to convince themselves that they weren't murdering the children. They were helping alleviate their suffering. That's called bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

    I know you're desperate to find a nice word for murder but it isn't working.

  3. Default

    Let me clear up some definitions here:

    Assisted suicide = you kill yourself with assistance from someone else

    Euthanasia = someone else kills you to alleviate your suffering. This can be at your request or consent (voluntary euthanasia), or without it (involuntary euthanasia, never legal).


    Both assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia are human rights in my book, and not a murder.
    "Billions for equal chances, not a penny for equal results."

    Charles Murray

  4. #64
    australia au queensland
    Location: QLD, Australia, Southern Hemisphere, Earth, Sol System, Orion Spur, Milky Way
    Posts: 10,476

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickT View Post
    I sympathize with your suffering, Pqnzer. So, watch out. Some might want to alleviate your suffering. And, any denial that you're suffering can be ignored. By your logic, if I decide you're suffering and I decide to kill you, it's the same as assisted suicide. Now, that's idiotic, Panzer.

    The only ignorant poster on this thread is you. Euthanasia, as in Hitler's Germany, had nothing to do with relieving suffering, did it? I'm sure that like you, the people who killed children with disabilities tried to convince themselves that they weren't murdering the children. They were helping alleviate their suffering. That's called bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

    I know you're desperate to find a nice word for murder but it isn't working.
    Strawman arguments aren't a sign of intelligent debate.

  5. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panzerkampfwagen View Post
    Strawman arguments aren't a sign of intelligent debate.
    Sorry, you don't understand strawman arguments. Your failure to understand a basic concept like murder has nothing to do with strawman arugments. And don't try to change the subject. Distraction is a tactic of the desperate.

    You decide someone should die withot their consent...it's murder.

    There are affirmative defenses to a charge of murder. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. "He wasn't happy" is not an affirmative defense. In a valid mercy killing, the circumstances might mitigate the penalty but not the guilt.

    Calling it suicide doesn't make it so. Calling it euthanasia makes the word, euthanasia, a euphemism for murder. You can properly call it a mercy killing but, of course, you'll still be prosecuted for murder. Care to guess why? Because it is murder.
    Last edited by PatrickT; Mar 05 2012 at 04:12 AM.

  6. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickT View Post

    Calling it suicide doesn't make it so. Calling it euthanasia makes the word, euthanasia, a euphemism for murder. You can properly call it a mercy killing but, of course, you'll still be prosecuted for murder. Care to guess why? Because it is murder.
    try not to take such a legal standpoint on this Patrick. My wife and I have already agreed as to the conditions under which we would help end each others life. This after having one of our adult children being placed in a position where she does not not wish to live because severe physical disability. I know what the legal standpoint is but the moral one is different. You must have had a number of colleagues take this way out, I know I have.
    Die dulci fruere

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickT View Post
    Sorry, you don't understand strawman arguments. Your failure to understand a basic concept like murder has nothing to do with strawman arugments. And don't try to change the subject. Distraction is a tactic of the desperate.

    You decide someone should die withot their consent...it's murder.

    There are affirmative defenses to a charge of murder. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. "He wasn't happy" is not an affirmative defense. In a valid mercy killing, the circumstances might mitigate the penalty but not the guilt.

    Calling it suicide doesn't make it so. Calling it euthanasia makes the word, euthanasia, a euphemism for murder. You can properly call it a mercy killing but, of course, you'll still be prosecuted for murder. Care to guess why? Because it is murder.
    Separate voluntary (consentual) euthasania from involuntary (unconsentual) euthanasia. Only the latter is murder.

    I am sure noone here is campaigning for legalisation of involuntary euthanasia. When they speak about it, they mean the voluntary one.
    Last edited by Blasphemer; Mar 05 2012 at 12:54 PM.
    "Billions for equal chances, not a penny for equal results."

    Charles Murray

  8. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blasphemer View Post
    Separate voluntary (consentual) euthasania from involuntary (unconsentual) euthanasia. Only the latter is murder.

    I am sure noone here is campaigning for legalisation of involuntary euthanasia. When they speak about it, they mean the voluntary one.
    When you're talking about murder, don't assume people mean assisted suicide. If that's what they mean, that's what they should say. I think people who wish to use the term euthanasia are looking for a way to make their decision to kill someone without their consent palatable.

    I was discussing killing babies that had been born as the result of an incompetent abortion and a woman said, "I don't consider that killing." Language is important. It can define thought and ideas.

    If I decide you need to die. It's murder. Quite simple really but there are those who wish to define killing someone, because you think it's in their best interest, as something other than murder.

    I, too, have a living will so my children will not have to make the decisions I had to make concerning my parents. They will have guidance, in black and white, on my wishes. But, I have a friend who talks a lot about how he should be allowed to kill his father because his "quality of life" is poor. When I asked if his father wants to die he said, "Hell, no, and he's spending all of my inheritiance on medical crap." That's this euthansaia argument.

    A new euthanasia case. A nurse arrested and charged with fist degree murder for killing dialysis patients. She is described as a caring person. Let's all hear it for euthansaia.

    http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/03/05/t...th-bleach-ivs/
    Last edited by PatrickT; Mar 06 2012 at 07:35 AM.

  9. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickT View Post
    Because humans can express a choice. Animals can't. People can say, "I want to die." Dogs can't.

    Euthanasia is libspeak for murder. If I decide to kill myself that's suicide. If I request help then it's an assisted suicide. I support both suicide and assisted suicide.

    Euthanasia is when one person decides that someone else should die. That's called murder.
    Guess what? If you define what words mean then to you that is what they will mean.

    Why anyone else would be interested in your made-up definitions of words is beyond me. I think the logical conlcusion is that this is an exercise in abusing liberals rather than determining the correct moral response to matters of life and death.
    Plus on aime quelqu'un, moins il faut qu'on le flatte:
    À rien pardonner le pur amour éclate.
    Moliere

    I think the term "classical liberal" is also equally applicable. I don't really care very much what I'm called. I'm much more interested in having people thinking about the ideas, rather than the person. Milton Friedman

    Die Sonne scheint noch. Es lebe die Freiheit!

  10. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickT View Post
    When you're talking about murder, don't assume people mean assisted suicide. If that's what they mean, that's what they should say. I think people who wish to use the term euthanasia are looking for a way to make their decision to kill someone without their consent palatable.

    I was discussing killing babies that had been born as the result of an incompetent abortion and a woman said, "I don't consider that killing." Language is important. It can define thought and ideas.

    If I decide you need to die. It's murder. Quite simple really but there are those who wish to define killing someone, because you think it's in their best interest, as something other than murder.

    I, too, have a living will so my children will not have to make the decisions I had to make concerning my parents. They will have guidance, in black and white, on my wishes. But, I have a friend who talks a lot about how he should be allowed to kill his father because his "quality of life" is poor. When I asked if his father wants to die he said, "Hell, no, and he's spending all of my inheritiance on medical crap." That's this euthansaia argument.

    A new euthanasia case. A nurse arrested and charged with fist degree murder for killing dialysis patients. She is described as a caring person. Let's all hear it for euthansaia.

    http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/03/05/t...th-bleach-ivs/
    This is just drivel isn't it. Shall we take it slowly?

    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickT
    When you're talking about murder, don't assume people mean assisted suicide. If that's what they mean, that's what they should say.
    OK, so you don't think assisted suicide is murder. Most courts of law would agree with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickT
    I think people who wish to use the term euthanasia are looking for a way to make their decision to kill someone without their consent palatable.
    You made this definition of euthanasia up, that it means killing someone without their consent. This is not the definition of anyone of euthanasia. Maybe you think the ancient Greeks - who invented the term meaning good death - were libtards?

    Assisted sucide is voluntary euthanasia;

    Hitler's killing of epileptics was involuntary euthanasia.

    All euthansia involves an assumption by the killer that the killing is an act of mercy. It is what the word means.

    This doesn't mean involuntary euthanasia is not murder, or manslaughter. It is. Who is trying to legalize it? No-one. You are railing against a non existent opponent.

    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickT
    I was discussing killing babies that had been born as the result of an incompetent abortion and a woman said, "I don't consider that killing." Language is important. It can define thought and ideas.
    Ah, now you move to abortion...erm...what's your point?

    Language is important...yes...and of course if you take life from something you are killing it. This is fact not opinion. Killing can be justified or unjustified. It is still killing. So the woman, if you are quoting her correctly, was talking nonsense from any political perspective that you could care to imagine.

    So either the "a woman" that you refer to was an idiot (so it's meaningless for you to quote her) or she didn't say what you say here and said something that was subjective like "I don't consider that murder".

    Language is important. Either its a piece of gobbledegook not worth repeating, or you didn't hear her right. Which?

    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickT
    If I decide you need to die. It's murder. Quite simple really but there are those who wish to define killing someone, because you think it's in their best interest, as something other than murder.
    Who? Where? Are you talking about Hitler now? You are talking about involuntary euthanasia, which I agree is normally murder (sometimes it is manslaughter if there are extenuating circumstances or the perpetrator is mentally unstable, but always it is illegal and no-one is trying to change this). Who is supporting involuntary euthanasia?

    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickT
    I, too, have a living will so my children will not have to make the decisions I had to make concerning my parents. They will have guidance, in black and white, on my wishes. But, I have a friend who talks a lot about how he should be allowed to kill his father because his "quality of life" is poor. When I asked if his father wants to die he said, "Hell, no, and he's spending all of my inheritiance on medical crap." That's this euthansaia argument.
    So your friend wants to murder his father. I think you should report him to the police. There is nothing "liberal" about this. That is just cheap abuse. Instead of abusing liberals by falsifying their arguments, report your friend to the authorities.

    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickT
    A new euthanasia case. A nurse arrested and charged with first degree murder for killing dialysis patients. She is described as a caring person. Let's all hear it for euthanasia.
    Are you serious? Firstly it is no sort of euthanasia, because it was not done from any motives of "mercy". The patients died in pain. Secondly she is charged with first degree murder, so what's the problem? Thirdly she is described as a caring person by her defence attorney as she is denying doing anything. That's what defence layers are supposed to say.

    Arguing that your client is innocent and of good character isn't arguing that the crime is justified.

    Arguing that someone who committed a crime is of previous good character isn't arguing that the crime is justified.

    That's what defence lawyers do. They defend the accused. And rightly so.

    This is simple stuff, isn't it?

    This isn't some "liberal" justification of anything. This is just garbage isn't it? No-one is arguing that she is justified in killing dialysis patients. No one is supporting murder. No-one is supporting involuntary euthanasia. What on earth are you railing at? Liberal demons in the smoke?
    Last edited by Heroclitus; Mar 08 2012 at 01:52 AM.
    Plus on aime quelqu'un, moins il faut qu'on le flatte:
    À rien pardonner le pur amour éclate.
    Moliere

    I think the term "classical liberal" is also equally applicable. I don't really care very much what I'm called. I'm much more interested in having people thinking about the ideas, rather than the person. Milton Friedman

    Die Sonne scheint noch. Es lebe die Freiheit!

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks