We're the Kids of America discussion

25 views
Hot Topics > Euthanasia

Comments Showing 1-50 of 93 (93 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by [deleted user] (new)

What do you think? Should it be allowed or outlawed?


message 2: by ♥ Rachel♥ (new)

♥ Rachel♥   (i_got_a_jar_of_dirt) | 2196 comments i think it should b legal. if i was in so much pain and misery, i would want some1 2 end it.


message 3: by [deleted user] (new)

I agree. I think it should be legal for sure, as long as it is carefully regulated.


message 4: by ♥ Rachel♥ (new)

♥ Rachel♥   (i_got_a_jar_of_dirt) | 2196 comments yes, of course. do u think more cancer patients should get euthanasia? cuz i think most don't....


message 5: by Conor (new)

Conor (i got me some bathing apes!) | 270 comments i think maybe it could be legal if it was REALLY well regulated. i think thats the only basic right that involves death people should have. whos gonna tell you your life means more to you than it does?


message 6: by ♥ Rachel♥ (new)

♥ Rachel♥   (i_got_a_jar_of_dirt) | 2196 comments it is legal already, conor.


message 7: by Conor (new)

Conor (i got me some bathing apes!) | 270 comments in some states yeah
not in all


message 8: by [deleted user] (new)

It should be allowed in all. If someone wants to die, there's no way the government should stop them.


message 9: by Paige (new)

Paige It should be legal in all states. It's like an algebra problem: what you do to one side, you do to the other. I think that's fair. :]


message 10: by Conor (new)

Conor (i got me some bathing apes!) | 270 comments me too


message 11: by Jayda (new)

Jayda I think that it should be illegal. Not only is this technically murder on the physicians part, but the person himself is taking a life: his own. Practically, it's the death sentence without a cause or a conviction.

If the person wants to die than they should go to therapy and work through their problems instead of being selfish and taking their own life. Suicide doesn't just affect the person who dies, it affects everyone who cares about them. Suicide is a cowardly and selfish move that only shows that you didn't have the power to take control of your life and fix it. The government can't control feelings, but it should control handing out suicide. If someone really wants to die than there are other ways that they can find that are painless.


message 12: by Sara (new)

Sara (weisthis) Once again, I agree with Jayda.


message 13: by Lauren, radical atheist...beware! (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 2702 comments Mod
We're not talking about suicide. What if you were injured and mortally in pain for the rest your life? Would you not want the release of death? This just makes it legal.


message 14: by Jayda (new)

Jayda No, I wouldn't, because I know how terrible a thing it is. I understand pain. But there comes a time when you're used to the pain. And there are medications to help dull the pain, if not take it all away. But killing yourself is one of the stupidest solutions out there.


message 15: by Sara (new)

Sara (weisthis) But what about the people that can't speak? How do you know if they're in pain? All you have is guesswork


message 16: by Lauren, radical atheist...beware! (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 2702 comments Mod
A person has control of their life while they live. Why should the government get control of your life in death? We kill hundreds of animals in the name of sympathy, but one human is a tragedy. Why is human life so valued that it must be preserved, even at the expense of quality of life? When the quality of a life slips to low, should that people not be able to relive their suffering? If not with a doctor, they would find other means. Keeping it legal means keeping ti safe, because people will do it anyway. But in a back road, it will be more painful and possibly fail.


message 17: by Jayda (new)

Jayda If they can't speak than they can't ask for Euthanasia. And most likely, the doctors can tell with monitors if the person is in pain. Brain monitors scan the functions of the brain and I believe that some can tell when a person is scared, happy, sad, in pain, etcetera. I may be wrong, but I think I'm right.

Exactly my point. If someone is seriously stupid enough to kill themselves (despite pain or not - I understand pain, don't think that I don't) than they can find other means. Taking a handful of pills would just make you go to sleep. The fumes from the car will make you go to sleep and suffocate in your sleep. There are other ways to die if you seriously want to do it. But doctors should not be allowed to give a depressed and suicidal person the ability to kill themselves. A suicidal person is not in their right mind. They're controlled by their emotions with this longing to die. The physician should not have the ability to just say yes and hand them death on a platter.


message 18: by Lauren, radical atheist...beware! (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 2702 comments Mod
"But doctors should not be allowed to give a depressed and suicidal person the ability to kill themselves. A suicidal person is not in their right mind. They're controlled by their emotions with this longing to die. The physician should not have the ability to just say yes and hand them death on a platter."

That is why there are regulations for this sort of thing. They have to pass a mental health test, they talk to people for them to judge on sanity.

But if the person is brain-dead, they should be able to write a will beforehand and decide for themselves.


message 19: by ♥ Rachel♥ (new)

♥ Rachel♥   (i_got_a_jar_of_dirt) | 2196 comments i actually agree with lauren.


message 20: by Lauren, radical atheist...beware! (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 2702 comments Mod
:D


message 21: by ♥ Rachel♥ (new)

♥ Rachel♥   (i_got_a_jar_of_dirt) | 2196 comments :-]


message 22: by Lauren, radical atheist...beware! (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 2702 comments Mod
lol I like that smiley.


message 23: by ♥ Rachel♥ (new)

♥ Rachel♥   (i_got_a_jar_of_dirt) | 2196 comments lolz tnxies. i never use it though....


message 24: by [deleted user] (new)

It's up to the person, the government shouldn't get involved. Obviously it needs to be seriously regulated, so that doctors don't take advantage of their patients in any way. But if someone in massive amounts of pain, who has no chance of getting better, wants to die peacefully in a hospital, that is their right. It's not up to us to tell them to suck it up and stop being selfish. It's their decision, if, as Lauren said, they pass the test.


message 25: by ♥ Rachel♥ (new)

♥ Rachel♥   (i_got_a_jar_of_dirt) | 2196 comments yeah


message 26: by [deleted user] (last edited May 02, 2009 05:18PM) (new)

Is not suicide generally unencouraged when the person is in psychological pain? How is it any different when it is physical pain? Pain is pain, it all hurts and we all feel some version of it. It is suicide if you ask for it - you are causing the death of yourself because you cannot bear the thought of going on living.

Euthanasia was actually first used by Hitler to explain that the Jews (especially, anyway) were better off dead then living. His word, his coining. Euthanasia is killing someone because they are better off dead because of disability, pain, or (in Hitler's case) race.

Personally I find it cowardly, just like commiting suicide for psychological reasons. It is a pitable situation and I feel sorry for those involved, but killing yourself is not the answer.


message 27: by Sara (new)

Sara (weisthis) I agree


message 28: by Jayda (new)

Jayda As do I.


message 29: by Sara (new)

Sara (weisthis) Yay us!


message 30: by Lauren, radical atheist...beware! (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 2702 comments Mod
"Personally I find it cowardly, just like commiting suicide for psychological reasons. It is a pitable situation and I feel sorry for those involved, but killing yourself is not the answer.
"

I'm actually writing a paper about this for school, so in a month or two, remind me to post it. :)


message 31: by [deleted user] (new)

Ok, well take the case (this is just an example) of a woman with cancer. She is in horrible pain constantly, she is weak and frail, can't take care of herself. There is no chance she is going to beat the cancer. She had maybe six months to live. At this point, she could either struggle on through the pain, fear, humiliation of being helpless, etc., or she could die painlessly and quickly. Which would you choose? It needs to be carefully regulated, but in a situation like that, euthanasia is the answer for someone who wants it.


message 32: by [deleted user] (new)

I would want to choose painless death, but I would have to choose six months of torture. Occupancy hazard of being Catholic - you go through a lot of pain.


message 33: by Lauren, radical atheist...beware! (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 2702 comments Mod
lol Self-inflicted, it seems.

It's her right to live, and if she chooses, to die with dignity. If that is what she wants, let her do it. It's not anyone's place to tell people what to do in a situation like that, or impose their morality on them.


message 34: by [deleted user] (new)

Not exactly self-inflicted, more like an acceptance of circumstance, but I do see your point.

... This is one legal battle I cannot win, but I will still say that euthanisia is not good. There is no arguement I can make understood ... not yet anyway.


message 35: by Lauren, radical atheist...beware! (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 2702 comments Mod
It's okay for every other living thing on the plant. What makes humans so different?


message 36: by [deleted user] (new)

Eh, souls.


message 37: by Lauren, radical atheist...beware! (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 2702 comments Mod
No such thing. ;) There goes that idea.

Every function for a soul is explainable in brain function. No need for one.


message 38: by Jayda (new)

Jayda No such thing that you know of :)
Just as God, there is no way to prove or disprove the existance of such thing.


message 39: by Lauren, radical atheist...beware! (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 2702 comments Mod
Well, what would a soul do?

Whatever is claimed that God has done, a simpler explanation can be found. Why believe in something that has no use?


message 40: by [deleted user] (new)

No simpler explanation for an after-life and that seems to have great use and has a lot to do with human souls and God.

You can't logically disprove God beyond a shred of doubt. Same with souls. I'd like to prove the existance of God but doubt I can. I'll come up with excellent reasoning and you'll do the same but we can never offer proof. We can only accept that our views are different for now.


message 41: by Lauren, radical atheist...beware! (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 2702 comments Mod
There is no afterlife. We don't get a pre-life, why a post-life?

As for proof, why would God, in creation, place animals exactly where they would be if evolution was at work?


message 42: by Jayda (new)

Jayda We had a pre-life, in a religious view. So in a religious view there's also an after-life.

To try our faith :) Everything here is a test of faith.


message 43: by [deleted user] (new)

Evolution does nothing to explain certain symbiotic relationships such as the blind shrimp and goby ... or that one fish that cleans the teeth of another fish to gain nutrients while making the other fish's teeth last longer. The latter fish know not to bite down on the fish cleaning his teeth.

Sorry, but the "theory" of evolution was taught to me as an unconfirmed hypothesis at best. There are far too many holes in it to be trusted.


message 44: by Lauren, radical atheist...beware! (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 2702 comments Mod
Pre-life? How so?

What holes? And just because the fish is blind, does not mean it is senseless. It has a sense, we might not recognize, that grew up just for this fish.

What holes?


message 45: by Jayda (new)

Jayda The pre-existance, the life where the 1/3 of God's spirit children left with Satan. It's in the Bible - we had a pre-life, a life before earth. That's how we all knew about His plan, that's where it all started for us.


message 46: by [deleted user] (new)

The blind shrimp digs holes in as shelter and uses the goby fish as his sense of sight. The goby fish acts as a watch dog for predators. Evolution is about the survival of the fittest - there is no reason in Darwin's theory for animals to creature mutual symbiosis like that. And how could fish comprehend the advantage in such a relationship anyway?

As for holes in evolution I need to get back to you, probably tomorrow or later, on it. I have a whole modual in my biology book on it.


message 47: by Lauren, radical atheist...beware! (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 2702 comments Mod
The survive of the fittest is between members in a species. It's like...they got married. They could be strong on their own, but if they pool resources, then they can be even better.

It gets the advantage, because it helps it survive. If it did not help, the practice would die out. That's why animals don't do useless things. There is a benefit, or it's a byproduct of a benefit.


message 48: by [deleted user] (last edited May 04, 2009 05:33PM) (new)

I just don't understand your perspective, Domerin and Jayda. It's ok to kill and torture terrorists, but not those of whom who are in pain and suffering?

Trying to get this off religion haha, as it always goes.


message 49: by Kyle (new)

Kyle Borland (kgborland) I think its okay to torture terrorists AND I agree with Euthanasia. :D


message 50: by Lauren, radical atheist...beware! (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 2702 comments Mod
lol everything turns to religion here.


« previous 1
back to top