In A World Without Abortion

[dairygirl4u2c]

as to all the stuff that was said earlier about euthanasia-- it seems pretty obvious to me that allowing it in certain situations at least, long drawn out intense pain and suffering that will almost surely end in death, should be allowed. when a dog is in that situation, you shoot it, put it out of its misery-- consent is assumed etc, and it's the compassionate thing to do. it also seems pretty obvious the only way you'd be against it, is cause of a religious compulsion to be against it cause they're told they have to be against it.
without a religious compulsion thing going on, only a sick twisted individual would be against allowing euthanasia in those situations.
ive known people in the situations, and nurses etc, who all are for it, im not talking in a vaccum.
if you want to endure it all for what you think is God's will for you, go for it. just don't impose that sort of thing on someone else. it's almost dispicable and blasphemous to all that's sacred, that anyone would.

i've read something about 'letting the government decide-- just wait, it will happen'. well, that's what happening here. the government is coming to your house 'we're the government, and we're here to help' is applicable here as ever. course, it's applicable anytime there's government involvement, and the question is more of whne that's permissible. but as i said in the last paragraph, there's no reason to justify being against it at least in limited situations, so here it's government involvement at its worst.

edit: well, maybe someone might be against it given a 'ends justify the means' argument. but these sorts of things are usually justified ultimately by religion, only- ie the ultimate premises one has is justified by religion.

Edited August 5, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Winchester]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1941163' date='Aug 5 2009, 11:27 AM']as to all the stuff that was said earlier about euthanasia-- it seems pretty obvious to me that allowing it in certain situations at least, long drawn out intense pain and suffering that will almost surely end in death, should be allowed. when a dog is in that situation, you shoot it, put it out of its misery-- consent is assumed etc, and it's the compassionate thing to do.[/quote]
Actually, the animal's consent is not at issue. Animals do not have rights.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Varg' post='1936468' date='Jul 31 2009, 09:07 AM']Plus the world is already overpopulated. What will happen if you "resolve" contraception?[/quote]
The world is overpopulated? Really? How did you come to this conclusion?

[CatherineM]

So Dairy, do you think we should have put John Paul II down like a sick dog?

[VeniteAdoremus]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1941355' date='Aug 6 2009, 01:42 AM']So Dairy, do you think we should have put John Paul II down like a sick dog?[/quote]

I know what you mean to say, but OUCH.

[Didacus]

Papa John-Paul the Great showed with example what it means to lilve fully and to the end, regardless of suffering!

I miss my papa, adn I hope to be as brave when my turn comes around the corner.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1941355' date='Aug 5 2009, 06:42 PM']So Dairy, do you think we should have put John Paul II down like a sick dog?[/quote]

good counter anlaogy, in a sense, per the pope's suffering.
as clarification, no 'we' shouldn't at any rate, in a sense, it'd be up to him. but, as to whether he should be allowed that autonomy - i don't know, i see your point. he was suffering, but was it enough?
i suppose it would depend on the degree of suffering. i would say there's clearly situations where the person should be allowed to put themselves down. extreme prolonged pain prob gonna end in death, the individual's choice-- key elements here.
this kinda gets into the problems inherent in the law- its curses etc, how do you make a law that captures when it's just and merciful to let them put themselves down?

bad analogy in a sense, cause i'm sensing your hostility towards my analogy of a dog. it's still a good analogy, even if it's a mere dog that wouldn't have the sacredness of a human, cause we do it in the name of relieving suffering-- and so for that reason, a person's sacredness is all the more reason.

i also see points counter mine, though, given JPII is a holy man, can we just put him down if he wanted it and his suffering was enough? i think i still would say yes, cause i'd defer the other way with sacredness-- but i see more clearly how one would think otherwise.
and i convict myself, cause that holiness should have been more apparent to me, for everyone, and the worth of every human being.

Edited August 6, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Winchester]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1942035' date='Aug 6 2009, 01:45 PM']it's still a good analogy, even if it's a mere dog that wouldn't have the sacredness of a human, cause we do it in the name of relieving suffering-- and so for that reason, a person's sacredness is all the more reason.[/quote]
It's a poor analogy because we have dominion over the lives of animals, but not over the lives of man.

[dairygirl4u2c]

yes- there's that component, that we have dominion over them, and they are not the same status as us. but there's also the component that we're releiving suffering- it's the compassionate/moral thing to do, and no one would seriously think otherwise.
just like we have domiion over animals to make their decision to act compassionately and morally, a person has dominion over themself to make that decision.

unless, you don't think men have dominion over themselves?

i'm not advocating killing people against their will, here.

[dairygirl4u2c]

and yes, i would probably be willing to make laws against random suicides. the reason is a matter of degree- one has merit, the other doesn't.
i see the point, that that former person does still have their own autonomy-- that's why i'm not completely sure it's the right decision to make the laws. but, there's also weakness effects-- eg, the same reason i would ban things like heroine even though i generally am for free drug use, people are weak and prone to mistakes and it seems like a virtue of state involvement to help them out against their will when they are weak- generally they'd thank us later for it anyway.

i dont see those sorts of considerations in the hard euthanasia cases.

[dairygirl4u2c]

whether it's substantitively the right thing to do, to end it, is a bit harder for me to decide, now.
i still say it's prob the right thing to do for an individual, like it is for shooting a dog.
whether to defer to the eindividal here, is also harder, for the above reasons contra mine.

but also, i still say defer- because i don't want to make that decision if i don't have to-- i would say defer to the person who has to endure it. in questions of uncertainty, defer to teh lowest level. kinda like the idea of subsidiarity, and no government.
with that said, i can appreciate someone who'd say that it's too strong of a matter to allow my contensions of sacredness, that deference should not be allowed. i would disagree, cause i hold deference, to individuals, governments (from a judical perspective) etc, to a very high degree, as a moral virtue.
i tend to think sacredness is more with putting them down, though, anyway, so for me it's a double whammy of the right thing to do- but i don't really like making those decisions that reasonable people could conclude differently on, especially for other people.

Edited August 6, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Winchester]

No, men do not have dominion over themselves. Our lives do not belong to us, they belong to God. As does all creation, but we have been given dominion over creation.

[dairygirl4u2c]

...

Edited August 6, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

they do belong to God, but that doesn't mean that that answers the question of whether it's the right or wrong thing to do?

it's actually kinda ironic, now that i think about it.
i think my arguments are the best here so far (grnated, i'm a bit bias), yet i'd think the only reason one woudl think otherwise is because of partiality to "ends means" or "relative truth" arguments (but of course mostly religious compulsion-- but i'm giving the benefit of the doubt).
i don't think either argument holds weight: per ends means as i've many times argued in the past if ya want to look into my arguments from before--- or how 'relative truth' should be distinguished between 'relative' and 'arbitrary' as i've also argued in the past.

but beside that theoretical stuff-- it's like there's all kinda of moral considerations here "government involvement is bad", or "defer to the individual", eg "ya got to let people smoke too much cause it's the moral thing, that deference" (or ban all sins, if not most-- which most people recognize as lunacy) is what a lot of people say. yet, they don't defer here.
how is that a matter of consistency per relative truth? how is that not 'justifying the means" etc? there's no way around it, it seems, doing things that might be considered 'shaddy'. the only reason a person doesn't feel themself as shaddy, is because they've accepted teh status quo of what's permissble according to social/religious convention (or perhaps an ethical system that's independant of it, but that's usually not that case)
(maybe some arguments per heirarchies of truth etc, i could see formulating some arguments being contra mine, but)

i agree common sense isn't so common or doen't exist at least as simple people like to think-- yet, it's like, the dog gets shot cause it's the compassionate thing to do, it's obvious-- yet how quickly does that sensibility get put under the carpet when religious (usually) compulsion comes into play.

so what's tragic here, if i'm right (which i admit i might not be, but i do think i am), is that in so trying not to be 'shaddy' in one minor sense, by following blindly (probably), they've succeeded in being shaddy in another major one, succeeding in being shaddy both as a system, and even common sensically-- they've just shot themself in the foot, no pun intended.

Edited August 6, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c