Euthanasia: without the god argument

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Sado22
So, now lets just assume that gods not in the picture. the biggest argument you get regarding mercy killing is that god gives life and only he has the right to take it away.
but now, we delete god from the equation because not everyone believes in him. so what now?

Shakyamunison
Just remember that during the French revolution those who started sending people to the Gilbertine all ended up at the Gilbertine.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Just remember that during the French revolution those who started sending people to the Gilbertine all ended up at the Gilbertine.

a) Gilbertine?
b) People asked to go to this Gilbertine?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
a) Gilbertine?
b) People asked to go to this Gilbertine?

That would be a guillotine, stupid spell checker. embarrasment


Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Just remember that during the French revolution those who started sending people to the guillotine all ended up at the guillotine.

Symmetric Chaos
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/+Euthanasia

Now that we've established that the French Revolution doesn't apply here let's move on.

inimalist
Wouldn't the free will argument negate the God argument anyways?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
Wouldn't the free will argument negate the God argument anyways?

Not necessarily. Free will only says you are able to make choices, not that you should be allowed to. If that makes any sense.

inimalist
fair enough, but wasn't that all born from the early treatment of Jews, where they were not to be forcibly converted.

Augustinian tolerance, or something like that, iirc. Aquinas later elaborated on it.

Like, isn't the rule that man has the right to sin, though face the consequences?

Also, wouldn't "unto the Caesars" apply?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/+Euthanasia

Now that we've established that the French Revolution doesn't apply here let's move on.

I'm sorry that my miss spelling got in the way of you understanding my point. I will then reword it for you.

The people who impose Euthanasia on others run the risk of having Euthanasia impose on them. A god is just an excuse to prevent this reckless path.

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The people who impose Euthanasia on others run the risk of having Euthanasia impose on them.

Euthanasia is voluntary, not imposed

EDIT: it would be like saying those who assist in suicide risk also being assisted in their suicide.

Sado22
hey, whaddyaknow! theists actually did something good for a change laughing

anyway, those who impose euthanasia run the risk of having it done on them? well, idealistically, these people shouldn't be having a problem with undergoing euthanasia too. i'm all for euthanasia. and i wouldn't mind it being carried out on me. provided that's what i want. in fact that makes it alright. its when a pro-euthanasia carries it out on someone whose anti-euthanasia or viseversa is when you have a problem.

also, i just love how people say, "oh, only god has the right to take life away" but then think its alright to murder people in his name. not to mention the number of times you here "god can't be known" but people still go around pretending they know exactly how he thinks.

~Sado

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
Euthanasia is voluntary, not imposed

EDIT: it would be like saying those who assist in suicide risk also being assisted in their suicide.

Not always. Under the Nazis, Euthanasia was used to kill many disabled people.

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not always. Under the Nazis, Euthanasia was used to kill many disabled people.

lol

ok, so we can redefine what we are talking about to mean something dramatically different

murder shouldn't be sanctioned. I don't think you really fail to see how doctor assisted voluntary suicide is different than murder though.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
lol

ok, so we can redefine what we are talking about to mean something dramatically different

murder shouldn't be sanctioned. I don't think you really fail to see how doctor assisted voluntary suicide is different than murder though.

I am in support of assisted suicide, but I don't like the word Euthanasia because governments have misused it in the past. I also think that there are logical reasons why religions have taboos like the one against suicide.

Sado22
murder is killing without conscent. euthanasia is killing with conscent. why people call it murder is beyond me...its like confusing a dominatrix with a polcie officer just because they both use handcuffs

~Sado
P.S *wonders if he could've given a better analogy* embarrasment

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am in support of assisted suicide, but I don't like the word Euthanasia because governments have misused it in the past. I also think that there are logical reasons why religions have taboos like the one against suicide.

But it's pretty obvious what we mean when we say euthanasia in this context. It is, by definition, not imposed on anyone.

Originally posted by Sado22
murder is killing without conscent. euthanasia is killing with conscent. why people call it murder is beyond me...its like confusing a dominatrix with a polcie officer just because they both use handcuffs

~Sado
P.S *wonders if he could've given a better analogy* embarrasment

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?

Shakyamunison
Then are you talking about the person who may help someone commit suicide, or the person who is committing suicide?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then are you talking about the person who may help someone commit suicide, or the person who is committing suicide?

I can hardly imagine a circumstance in real life where you're in a clinic or hospital that provides euthanasia and would have to force a person to kill you. Anyway, people who support euthanasia as a choice you get to make they wouldn't simulanteously support forcing someone to do it.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I can hardly imagine a circumstance in real life where you're in a clinic or hospital that provides euthanasia and would have to force a person to kill you. Anyway, people who support euthanasia as a choice you get to make they wouldn't simulanteously support forcing someone to do it.

What?

This thread is not well defined.

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?

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?

Shakyamunison
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.

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

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

laughing ..... sad

inimalist
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?

Shakyamunison
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.

inimalist
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.

Shakyamunison
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

inimalist
EDIT: but can you back up anything you said?

Symmetric Chaos
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.

Shakyamunison
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.

inimalist
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?

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.

Shakyamunison
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.

Symmetric Chaos
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.

Sado22
well, think of it this way: most people who are against euthanasia say that only god has the right to take life away and to give it. therefor we have no right to decide if a person should die or not, regardless of conscent. but now you tell god to hit the showers i.e. the star player of the anti-euthanasia squad is out of the picture.
now what will the anti-euthanasia people say once you've taken placed the right of taking life in the hands of mankind.

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? stick out tongue


all that matters is what points would you make for the anti-euthanasia position.


true but we're talking on the idealistic level. we're assuming that the doctors have given it everything they had but the situation is just imposisible.


well said! hysterical

inimalist
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.

Shakyamunison
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 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.

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.

inimalist
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.

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

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

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think it's pretty Shaky has simply lost his mind.

The only counter argument to euthanasia, if you take away the god argument, is the Slippery Slope argument.


Can you come up with one?

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

I can generate an infinite number of invalid arguments against euthanasia. Euthanasia causes aids, euthanasia causes cancer, euthanasia causes your children's teeth to fall out

In fact, there could be an algorithm...

As I don't believe that the God argument is a good one against euthanasia anyways (very few religious sects, especially modern, believe in forcibly making everyone follow their rules, and at the heart of Christian ideology is free will and the right to sin and face the consequences), I clearly don't see any good ones from a secular stance.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
I can generate an infinite number of invalid arguments against euthanasia. Euthanasia causes aids, euthanasia causes cancer, euthanasia causes your children's teeth to fall out

In fact, there could be an algorithm...

As I don't believe that the God argument is a good one against euthanasia anyways (very few religious sects, especially modern, believe in forcibly making everyone follow their rules, and at the heart of Christian ideology is free will and the right to sin and face the consequences), I clearly don't see any good ones from a secular stance.

And you would get an F if you were in a debate class.

inimalist
indeed, I stopped being interested in "debates" when I learned that there was no necessity to back up or support your arguments.

I don't really care to be an expert at speaking out of my ass

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
indeed, I stopped being interested in "debates" when I learned that there was no necessity to back up or support your arguments.

I don't really care to be an expert at speaking out of my ass

I was just challenging you to come up with an argument that goes against euthanasia without reference to a god. If you can't, then the thread is done.

inimalist
ok

Sado22
if you two are done, i'd let to get on with the thread

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.