Euthanasia: without the god argument

Originally posted by inimalist
Try: If ignoring the religious claim that all life is sacred and that only the creator has the right to end it, tied specifically with the idea that a community should be operated under such commandments, are there any arguments against euthanasia, defined as the voluntary agreement between doctor and patient whereby the doctor ends the patient's life, regularly to avoid a much more painful death, being an acceptable practice within a community?

Thank You!

Of Course there is: The Slippery Slope.

If a society gets accustom to old people being killed when they are too sick, then it is easier to put pressure on those who are tasking the social systems, like the handicapped. This is why I think religions are against euthanasia or suicide.

The Euthanasia got killed in Tianemen Square. That was a sad day.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The Euthanasia got killed in Tianemen Square. That was a sad day.

😆 ..... 🙁

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Of Course there is: The Slippery Slope.

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

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If a society gets accustom to old people being killed when they are too sick, then it is easier to put pressure on those who are tasking the social systems, like the handicapped. This is why I think religions are against euthanasia or suicide.

you don't see a difference between "killing one who asks for it" and "killing for the purpose of reducing the cost to the state"?

or at the very least, you don't think there might already be some protections in the law against such a practice, or that they might be able to create such protections?

Originally posted by inimalist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

you don't see a difference between "killing one who asks for it" and "killing for the purpose of reducing the cost to the state"?

or at the very least, you don't think there might already be some protections in the law against such a practice, or that they might be able to create such protections?

You know, the Nazis would claim that the Jews asked for it, by living in so such filth. They ignore the fact that the Nazis caused the filth in the first place.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You know, the Nazis would claim that the Jews "asks for it".

proof?

I'd think the Nazis would say "the Jews deserved it"

Surely you see the difference between "killing because of a voluntary agreement" and "killing because on side believes the other deserves to die"

To point out, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of laws currently on the books that have precedence about what constitutes "consent". Unless we specifically use of definition of euthanasia which allows for non-consensual killing, which it was determined we are not using, these issues are already largely taken care of.

EDIT: For instance, laws about consentual sex dont cause those who practice consentual sex to be raped.

Originally posted by inimalist
proof?

I'd think the Nazis would say "the Jews deserved it"

Surely you see the difference between "killing because of a voluntary agreement" and "killing because on side believes the other deserves to die"

To point out, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of laws currently on the books that have precedence about what constitutes "consent". Unless we specifically use of definition of euthanasia which allows for non-consensual killing, which it was determined we are not using, these issues are already largely taken care of.

EDIT: For instance, laws about consentual sex dont cause those who practice consentual sex to be raped.

What I think does not matter. Logan's Run

EDIT: but can you back up anything you said?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What I think does not matter. Logan's Run

Well if the titles of books are all we need to make an argument I think we can prove just about anything.

Originally posted by inimalist
EDIT: but can you back up anything you said?

Let's look at the other side. You think that we, as a society, can have a far and equatable system of euthanasia? I dispute that, and WWII is my main proof.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You think that we, as a society, can have a far and equatable system of euthanasia?

nope

I think it is possible for their to be laws by which euthanasia can be practiced where it does not lead to doctors forcibly euthanizing people. The Netherlands have had this practice for many years, and I have heard nothing personally about doctor abuses. They do have some policy on infant euthanasia, though I'm sure it is not the doctor's decision, and there is a good argument that this form of infant euthanasia is really an extension of genetic pre-screening in the womb (or rather, exists until that technology becomes more widely available and matures).

life is by definition unfair and unequal, and it is impossible for laws to effect all people equally

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I dispute that, and WWII is my main proof.

you don't think there may be more important factors involved in the Nazi's extermination of those deemed "unfit" aside from the fact they had laws allowing euthanasia?

Would suicide-by-cop be considered a form of euthanasia?

^ They wanna die, and there's a willing professional on-hand with the proper training and equipment.

Originally posted by inimalist
nope

I think it is possible for their to be laws by which euthanasia can be practiced where it does not lead to doctors forcibly euthanizing people. The Netherlands have had this practice for many years, and I have heard nothing personally about doctor abuses. They do have some policy on infant euthanasia, though I'm sure it is not the doctor's decision, and there is a good argument that this form of infant euthanasia is really an extension of genetic pre-screening in the womb (or rather, exists until that technology becomes more widely available and matures).

life is by definition unfair and unequal, and it is impossible for laws to effect all people equally

you don't think there may be more important factors involved in the Nazi's extermination of those deemed "unfit" aside from the fact they had laws allowing euthanasia?

I'm just talking about human nature. We have the potential for great evil.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Would suicide-by-cop be considered a form of euthanasia?

^ They wanna die, and there's a willing professional on-hand with the proper training and equipment.

No, the cop is not consulted or willing.

This thread is not well defined.

thus the situation: a person is in incredible pain and suffering (think end scene of Million dollar baby). s/he is willing to end their suffering and have given their consent. how do you decide to go about it, now that you've removed god from picture.

do you get it nowl, silly? 😛

So when we delete god from the equation, are we talking about the person who may help someone commit suicide, or the person who is committing suicide?

a society gets accustom to old people being killed when they are too sick, then it is easier to put pressure on those who are tasking the social systems, like the handicapped. This is why I think religions are against euthanasia or suicide
[quote]I'm just talking about human nature. We have the potential for great evil.

How about : It's like confusing a police officer with a dominatrix because they both lock your penis in a cage and force you to act like a cute little puppy?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm just talking about human nature. We have the potential for great evil.

ok, so apply this principal to anything

should we have rape laws - no, humans have a potential for great evil

should I go to work today? - no, humans have a potential for great evil

should I try to be a decent person - no, humans have a potential for great evil

you have to make the argument that connects these two points. You have to give logical reasons why allowing for doctor assisted suicide is going to cause evil. The argument you are making could be applied as well to any other situation, and essentially is a cop-out, imho.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, so apply this principal to anything

should we have rape laws - no, humans have a potential for great evil

should I go to work today? - no, humans have a potential for great evil

should I try to be a decent person - no, humans have a potential for great evil

you have to make the argument that connects these two points. You have to give logical reasons why allowing for doctor assisted suicide is [b]going to cause evil. The argument you are making could be applied as well to any other situation, and essentially is a cop-out, imho. [/B]

The thread asked if there was an argument against euthanasia that does not include a god. I have told you what that argument is, why should I do any more? Have you come up with any? Now you try. Come up with an argument against euthanasia that does not include a god.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The thread asked if there was an argument against euthanasia that does not include a god. I have told you what that argument is, why should I do any more? Have you come up with any? Now you try. Come up with an argument against euthanasia that does not include a god.

The purpose of the thread, as expressed and further elaborated by Sado, after you said it was unclear, is to see if there is a valid argument against euthanasia other than appealing to a higher power.

You have said that "man can do evil"

this isn't actually an argument against euthanasia, but rather a statement of fact. It applies equally to all human activity, and thus is moot when considering a single human activity.

You have said "There is a slippery slope"

which isn't actually true. If you could provide the logical connection between legal doctor assisted suicide and forcible death at the hands of a doctor, then it might not be a fallacious answer.

You have said "The nazis did it"

which possibly ties the consequence to the action, as required in your "slippery slope" statement, however, from any rational analysis:

a) Nazi Germany and modern western democracies are not analogous in that way
b) there are far better explanations for the murder of those deemed "unfit" in Nazi Germany aside from there being laws allowing doctors to do such
c) The euthanasia practiced in Nazi Germany is, by definition, not the type of euthanasia we are talking about, as it was determined by the end of the first page that we are only discussing consensual euthanasia
d) laws exist already, with regard to the legal precedent of consent, which would make involuntary euthanasia illegal; unless the specific type of euthanasia that a state made legal was the involuntary kind, which, as per c), is not the type of euthanasia we are discussing
e) the netherlands have had euthanasia laws for many years with none of the problems you seem to be insinuating should occur

If the standard for this thread is to just come up with something, might as well say: no euthanasia because of rainbows, and the Balkins war is my proof.

I never saw anything about "Valid". So you (inimalist) cannot come up with anything?

I think it's pretty Shaky has simply lost his mind.