First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Should a person who is suffering from a terminal illness be able to end their life?
26060 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Oklahoma
Offline
Posted 8/7/17 , edited 8/7/17
If that is the decision they wish to make, I can not even think of stopping them. I experienced seeing both of my grandparents pass away painfully from terminal cancer. In their final stages they weren't really "there" anymore. Just beings in agonizing pain that made them scream. It really got to me. If that ever happens to me, I definitely want to be let go before getting to that stage. Being alive like that only brings pain to everyone.

Besides, I'd say without a second thought that any such pain overpowers the pain that the loss loved ones will experience from the individual passing away. Not only is it selfish to keep someone alive like that when they don't want to, it's straight-up inhumane.
13039 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Marshall, Michigan
Offline
Posted 8/7/17

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


jtjumper wrote:

My point was that the Constitution grants the States that power to decide whether or not allow it:

Right. And the rebuttal to every single example that you made was: so what?

The question was not "Is it allowed?", it was "Should it be allowed?", and I gave my answer.


Did you misread what I said? I wasn't discussing whether we should or shouldn't allow it, but rather why society is able decide to restrict it they wish which, as I have stated from the beginning, is the Constitution. You "so what" s have had no affect on that. Perhaps I've been off-topic this whole time. I feel like this conversation has not been wholly congruent.

7252 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Washington State
Offline
Posted 8/7/17

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


jtjumper wrote:

My point was that the Constitution grants the States that power to decide whether or not allow it:

Right. And the rebuttal to every single example that you made was: so what?

The question was not "Is it allowed?", it was "Should it be allowed?", and I gave my answer.


You could have simply pointed out none of his examples are actually part of the US Constitution.
1760 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Spokane, Washingt...
Offline
Posted 8/7/17
Normally, I'd say no, but I'd be dammed if they are going to nickle and Ben Frank me to death. Health care cost is ridiculous, and I would never trust a doctor to keep someone alive just a bit longer, especially if someone other then the deceased is getting footed the bill.

If I was terminally ill, but still had just enough strength, screw staying in a doc's bed for $2000 a night, I'm leaving and riding down the hospital's huge hill on a skateboard or other questionably safe wheeled device. Not only will that save me money, but it will be hella fun, for however many seconds I don't crash at 30+ MPH.

Also helps there is a skate shop just 2 blocks away.
14962 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/8/17
Dying with dignity? That's fucking hilarious.
34641 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 8/8/17 , edited 8/8/17

KevHunt wrote:

You could have simply pointed out none of his examples are actually part of the US Constitution.

I am trying not create tangents. Which is why I snip most quotes and only attack the relevant information. Pointing out that his arguments were irrelevant, for example, already made him hyperfocus on those alone, so every time he yells "nuh-uh", I am just not going to address him further.
13039 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Marshall, Michigan
Offline
Posted 8/8/17

KevHunt wrote:


XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


jtjumper wrote:

My point was that the Constitution grants the States that power to decide whether or not allow it:

Right. And the rebuttal to every single example that you made was: so what?

The question was not "Is it allowed?", it was "Should it be allowed?", and I gave my answer.


You could have simply pointed out none of his examples are actually part of the US Constitution.


That wouldn't matter, because I never claimed or even implied they were.
For your convenience here's the original argument:


jtjumper wrote:


XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


Who made you the arbiter of someone's life?


The Constitution did. Or rather, it made our society that. Answers to any moral question will place restrictions on someone. Weapons-free zones and gun laws reduce people's ability to arm themselves. Truth in advertising laws restrict what we can say. Dress codes and school uniforms restrict what we can wear. "Don't steal" reduces my ability to act, but we accept it as part of society.


In red, was my main argument.
The blue part was my second point that the answers to any moral question will place restrictions on someone, and he was saying we shouldn't restrict people.
The green part listed examples of times society has (for good reason) restricted people.


In any case, what I wanted prove has already been agreed with:

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


jtjumper wrote:

My point was that the Constitution grants the States that power to decide whether or not allow it:

Right.


Mission Accomplished.



Falxie 
73 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Ireland
Offline
Posted 8/8/17
If a person is in great pain, and wants to end it, let him. Nobody has the right to restrict individuals from death.
811 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New England, USA
Offline
Posted 8/8/17 , edited 8/8/17
Yes I think anyone should be able to choose. After seeing some family members die a slow and painful death it made me question peoples quality of life in some situations. I don't want my life to end that way nor do I want it to be like that for anyone else.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.