It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Assisted Suicide and abortion

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
I just read an article about physician assisted suicide and once again I'm baffled by the moral divergency.

In 47 states it's illegal for a physician to assist a lucid, coherent, sane person in ending his or her life peacefully, painlessly, and with dignity at the time of his or her choice. But, it is completely legal for a physician to brutally end the life of any womans unborn child, on demand, and even against the wishes and pleas of the childs father.

Any society that accepts this f'ed up situation has no future.




posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Both should be acceptable under guidelines.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbluesky
 


Would you kindly tell me who owns our bodies? Is it the government? Is it a woman's husband or a man's wife? Is it our parents? Our grandparents?

Most individuals would resoundingly agree that it is US-- the individual-- that owns our bodies. Not the government, not our spouses, and not our parents. We have a claim to our bodies because it is ours. Thus, we have a claim on anything that occurs inside or outside our bodies.

You make a good argument about assisted suicide; it is true that a forward thinking, logical, sane person has every right to determine whether or not they should suffer through unneeded pain or die a respectful, peaceful death. However, you then go on to argue that a woman does not have a right to have an abortion because their husband may protest.

Well, what about the elderly wife that protests about her husband wishing to partake in assisted suicide? What about the son who disagrees with his mother's choice to end her life instead of fighting an uphill battle against stage 3 pancreatic cancer? If the man/woman in this situation has a claim on their body, then it goes to suggest that they have a right to make a decision without having to rely upon the opinions/wishes of others, even if it is their family members. So, what is the difference between assisted suicide and abortion? What is the difference between a woman deciding to terminate her pregnancy despite the protests of her husband/boyfriend, or her parents or friends? If we own our bodies (which we absolutely do), then the woman has a right to make a choice as to whether or not she wants to continue with the pregnancy.

Again, we own bodies, not anybody else. Not our boyfriends/girlfriends, our husbands/wives, or our mothers or fathers. We do.

Abortion and assisted suicide are human rights. Any society that restricts these rights are never truly free.

edit on 14-6-2011 by Judge_Holden because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
if i want to die i will thanks


Id rather just drink a cocktail of poisons and die under the Swiss mountains rather than having to jump in front of a train and annoy thousands of people.

Everyone has human rights....the right to die a dignified death is written in law yet 99% of countries dont allow a person to end their life in a painless dignified way.

I think its a persons choice to decide if they live or die, i dont think governments should keep people alive who dont want to be here. Its OUR life, if someone is certain they dont want to live they should be allowed to die....its themselves they are terminating...their choice, their body.

If you are in the uk have a look at this documentary following the writer Terry Pratchet investigate what assisted suicide entails in Switzerland....WARNING a guy is filmed after drinking the poison, he dies in his sleep, its not too disturbing (its on BBC) very moving program

www.bbc.co.uk...

This might work in the USA if you want to see it

videostre4m.com...

Im also pro abortion....its a womans choice...its her choice...i dont care if you dont agree that a woman doesnt have that choice because she does. Its her body, her life, no other persons business.

Most women chose for early termination if the situation permits it. The baby isnt even conscious/alive when most abortions are carried out.

Its a personal choice made by millions of women each year...its not for you or i to decide whats best for them
edit on 14-6-2011 by loves a conspiricy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by darkbluesky
 


Would you kindly tell me who owns our bodies? Is it the government? Is it a woman's husband or a man's wife? Is it our parents? Our grandparents?

Most individuals would resoundingly agree that it is US-- the individual-- that owns our bodies. Not the government, not our spouses, and not our parents. We have a claim to our bodies because it is ours. Thus, we have a claim on anything that occurs inside or outside our bodies.


I absolutely agree. We own our own bodies, not the bodies of others. Now, about the unborn child. He or she doesn't have a claim on his or her own body?

In order to make this work, you have to claim that the unborn child is not a body simply because that body is dependant on another body to stay alive for a few more weeks before it can live on its own. It's an artificial distinction based upon your beliefs with no regard for the unborn child which cannot defend itself.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
If a terminally ill individual is in so much pain that they simply cannot bear it the decision to end their life is entirely up to them and should not fall to another. I cant think of too many terminal conditions where the patient doesn’t have an ample supply of medications to put them to sleep permanently.

But this decision is their own to make and their own to carry out. Take the pills, sit in the garage with the car running, put a shotgun in your mouth, sit in front of locomotive … whatever. Life is precious and it’s a gift, committing suicide is an offense to God for taking what is not yours to take, and the repercussion is borne by the individual. But I’m sorry, the role of a physician is to heal and “do no harm”, it’s the essence of the Hippocratic oath. Health care providers shouldn’t serve as an executioner, no matter how willing their patients are.

History has shown us time and time again that the destination of this road goes from physician assisted suicide to involuntary euthanasia … just like they have in the Netherlands now.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbluesky
 


Assisted Suicide should also be legal. It's not the government's business (or religion's) whether I choose to live this life or not. This life does not belong to the government (or religion). I don't have to check with the government (or religion) to make that choice. And I don't have to check with them to have a medical procedure done on my body or to ask if it's OK with them if I choose not to reproduce. It's not your business and it's not the government's (or religion's) business. It's mine alone.

reply to post by Judge_Holden
 


Bravo....


.
edit on 6/14/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 


I hate to say this but you are the reason this is still illegal.

Religion has blighted our lives for hundreds of years....religion is guilty of so much pain and suffering which could have been avoided. Look at Manilla for example.....they love your god too, live in an 8'x8' shed with their 14 kids...because they arent allowed contraception. Many of these kids die of disease and hunger!

No one owns me...not even YOUR ficticious god.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
reply to post by SirMike
 


I hate to say this but you are the reason this is still illegal.


I take that as a compliment .. thank you.


Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
reply to post by SirMike
 
No one owns me...not even YOUR ficticious god.


What you believe is irrelevant, like it or not you do belong to God. I'm quite sorry if this upsets you in any way.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 





In order to make this work, you have to claim that the unborn child is not a body simply because that body is dependant on another body to stay alive for a few more weeks before it can live on its own. It's an artificial distinction based upon your beliefs with no regard for the unborn child which cannot defend itself.


I never made that argument, and I would never make that argument. Whether or not the baby is alive is beside the point; we, as individuals, lay claim on ANYTHING within our bodies. We have a right to sell our kidneys, to damage out livers with excessive consumption of alcohol, etc. Now, while an unborn child certainly is not a kidney or a liver, it is inside of us. It is a part of our body. Thus, we have a claim on it.

The issue of abortion is a moral one. With that said, the state has no right to sanction morality. The issue of abortion is a personal one, regardless of individual beliefs, and should be treated as such. If you are against abortion, marry/date an individual who shares these views. If you are ever asked your opinion by a close friend or family member on what they should do with their unborn child, by all means, tell them to keep it. But it is not your responsibility, nor mine, nor is it the states even, to make that decision. We have no right to push our moral convictions or standards on others.

Want my personal opinion? If a friend or family member came up to me and was unsure about what to do with their unborn child, I would suggest they have the child and give it up for adoption. Why? Because that is what I believe. At the same time, if that individual decided to have an abortion, then I would accept it and realize that that was their choice. Not mine.

You can disagree with abortion all you want. You can say it is murder, immoral, and disgusting (I am not saying you did or ever have, I am just illustrating a point). Nobody is saying you do not have a right to do so. At the same time, you need to realize that abortion is personal. The ultimate decision lies at an individual level. You and I have no final say in it.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirMike

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
reply to post by SirMike
 


I hate to say this but you are the reason this is still illegal.


I take that as a compliment .. thank you.


Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
reply to post by SirMike
 
No one owns me...not even YOUR ficticious god.


What you believe is irrelevant, like it or not you do belong to God. I'm quite sorry if this upsets you in any way.



Which one???? there are literally millions to chose from lol

Religion has held back humanity, science, ethics....you believe in a sky fairy without an ounce of proof...i dont


If my girlfriend were to be pregnant with a seriously deformed baby neither of us would want to put a kid through that...we would do the right thing and have it terminated. You see it as murder, i see it as an act of kindness.

Your beliefs are tainted by your religious beliefs.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
The issue of abortion is a moral one. With that said, the state has no right to sanction morality. The issue of abortion is a personal one, regardless of individual beliefs, and should be treated as such.


Poppycock. If you concede that an unborn child is a distinct unique individual, any action taken that terminates its life is murder and the state most certainly ha s a compelling interest in stopping murder no matter how “personal” a decision that may be. As far as the “choice” argument goes, you lost your choice when you decided to become pregnant.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 




If a terminally ill individual is in so much pain that they simply cannot bear it the decision to end their life is entirely up to them and should not fall to another.


Nobody is suggesting that it would fall to another. If the decision to humanely end their life was made, then it would fall to a qualified individual who was willing to carry out the procedure; not forced onto the doctor's shoulders.



But this decision is their own to make and their own to carry out. Take the pills, sit in the garage with the car running, put a shotgun in your mouth, sit in front of locomotive … whatever.


Or they can decide to end their life humanely with a qualified individual instead of spraying their brain matter all over the place (shotgun), falling into a very real and very terrifying carbon monoxide induced shock (car), being subjected to intoxication followed by hours of vomiting and seizure (pills), or feeling the first few wheels of a locomotive crushing their legs and skull (train).



Life is precious and it’s a gift, committing suicide is an offense to God for taking what is not yours to take, and the repercussion is borne by the individual.


Again, this is a moral decision that is up to the individual. Your belief in God or God's gift is irrelevant. As long as the individual is able to justify their decision within themselves, you have no say. Nor do I. Morality cannot be sanctioned by the state as it is a violation of individual rights.



But I’m sorry, the role of a physician is to heal and “do no harm”, it’s the essence of the Hippocratic oath. Health care providers shouldn’t serve as an executioner, no matter how willing their patients are.


You are flat-out wrong, here. There are numerous doctors and physicians who believe that assisted suicide is humane and is not a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. Equating assisted suicide to execution is absurd.



History has shown us time and time again that the destination of this road goes from physician assisted suicide to involuntary euthanasia … just like they have in the Netherlands now.


The United States of America is not the Netherlands. We have a Constitution that is unparalleled to any in the world. If you worry about such an unlikely scenario, then you must have no faith in our country. Odd, for someone who believes in God.

edit on 14-6-2011 by Judge_Holden because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by SirMike
 




Nobody is suggesting that it would fall to another. If the decision to humanely end their life was made, then it would fall to a qualified individual who was willing to carry out the procedure; not forced onto the doctor's shoulders.


“Nobody is suggesting that it would fall to another” doesn’t really jive with “it would fall to a qualified individual”



Or they can decide to end their life humanely with a qualified individual instead of spraying their brain matter all over the place (shotgun), falling into a very real and very terrifying carbon monoxide induced shock (car), being subjected to intoxication followed by hours of vomiting and seizure (pills), or feeling the first few wheels of a locomotive crushing their legs and skull (train).


Humanely or inhumanely … you are just as dead. And spare me this “death with dignity” bull$# ..there aint no dignity in death. I seen lots of dead people and its never pretty, they are all just as dead in the end regardless of how they got there.


Again, this is a moral decision that is up to the individual. Your belief in God or God's gift is irrelevant. As long as the individual is able to justify their decision within themselves, you have no say. Nor do I. Morality cannot be sanctioned by the state as it is a violation of individual rights.


Morality can and is routinely sanctioned by the state in every manifestation of the state from republic to tyranny, that’s a fact. Your protest to the contrary is irrelevant.


You are flat-out wrong, here. There are numerous doctors and physicians who believe that assisted suicide is humane and is not a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. Equating assisted suicide to execution is absurd.


Their beliefs, once again, are irrelevant. The concept first do no harm just doesn’t fit with helping a patient commit suicide no matter how hard you try to square that circle.


The United States of America is not the Netherlands.


All the more reason we shouldn’t have voluntary euthanasia, thank you for conceding this.


We have a Constitution that is unparalleled to any in the world. If you worry about such an unlikely scenario, then you must have no faith in our country. Odd, for someone who believes in God.


So its odd for someone who believes in God to not have faith in manmade constructs like constitutions and republics? That’s an interesting take.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
If my girlfriend were to be pregnant with a seriously deformed baby neither of us would want to put a kid through that...we would do the right thing and have it terminated. You see it as murder, i see it as an act of kindness.


Funny, I don’t think your unborn child would see it as terribly kind. And for whom would the decision be right … for you and your girlfriend or for your unborn child? As soon as we begin being the arbiters of whose existence is worth living and whose is not it opens the door to unimaginable atrocities.


Your beliefs are tainted by your religious beliefs.


And yours are tainted by your lack of belief in anything other than yourself.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
This appears to be turning into another abortion thread. It's in Political Issues. It's an interesting subject - the illegality and political aspect of assisted suicide - but the abortion threads all take the same road that this one seems to be going down. You've got people who are FOR freedom of choice, self-governance and personal responsibility and those who wish to inject their personal, religious morals on everyone else through legal means. Oh, joy.


I see the OP was on 12 minutes ago but didn't respond to anything.


Originally posted by SirMike
What you believe is irrelevant


Likewise.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by SirMike
What you believe is irrelevant


Likewise.


No, for you see, that’s where you are wrong. What I believe is eminently relevant because I vote, I involve myself in my community, I donate to organizations that share my beliefs, I donate time to organizations that share my beliefs …. In other words my “beliefs” become law and your beliefs become fodder for ATS threads.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 




As far as the “choice” argument goes, you lost your choice when you decided to become pregnant.


You are wrong, and as an American, you should be ashamed of yourself for making such a claim. Becoming pregnant is not a crime. An individual never loses their right of choice for anything as doing so would mean that the individual loses their right to be free. This is the United States, not Soviet Russia, Communist China, or North Korea.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
TROLL



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mikellmikell
 


Should be under survival heading




top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join