Two of the words I avoid in this discussion are "person" and "murder".
But you use feticide and infanticide.
Why?
Two of the words I avoid in this discussion are "person" and "murder".
This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.And I think neither killing nor murder applies. Stopping doing something that is keeping something alive is not killing it, it is letting it die. There is a substantive difference between a death resulting from a revocation of "mercy" in unplugging a 'vegetable', and injecting someone with a cocktail that will kill them.“Killing” might be less emotive than “murder”, but both are emotionally charged words; Technically you are “killing human life” if you have a mole removed, but to refer to this as “killing” would be ridiculously emotive.
And even then not all killings are unethical.
Abortions are not necessarily "killings" for this reason, though, and we can dispense with the connotations that brings. They DO necessarily lead to a death, but the death is not generally the goal.
The removal is the goal, and the death is secondary to that.
As I remind, even then not all killings are unethical.This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.And I think neither killing nor murder applies. Stopping doing something that is keeping something alive is not killing it, it is letting it die. There is a substantive difference between a death resulting from a revocation of "mercy" in unplugging a 'vegetable', and injecting someone with a cocktail that will kill them.“Killing” might be less emotive than “murder”, but both are emotionally charged words; Technically you are “killing human life” if you have a mole removed, but to refer to this as “killing” would be ridiculously emotive.
And even then not all killings are unethical.
Abortions are not necessarily "killings" for this reason, though, and we can dispense with the connotations that brings. They DO necessarily lead to a death, but the death is not generally the goal.
The removal is the goal, and the death is secondary to that.
This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.
Because those words are much more objective and precise. They're both subsets of homicide.Two of the words I avoid in this discussion are "person" and "murder".
But you use feticide and infanticide.
Why?
But you still suffer, just not as much. The countries that have legalized it don't seem to have a problem despite occasional misrepresentations by religious people.This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.
A woman at our church decided to use that slower routine, where you stop eating for a few days and then stop drinking. According to her grandchildren she died peacefully surrounded by family, and did so on her own terms.
Which is again why things like "killing" hinge on consent.But you still suffer, just not as much. The countries that have legalized it don't seem to have a problem despite occasional misrepresentations by religious people.This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.
A woman at our church decided to use that slower routine, where you stop eating for a few days and then stop drinking. According to her grandchildren she died peacefully surrounded by family, and did so on her own terms.
I am just befuddled about how ignorant this statement is. Just don't eat or drink, easy peasy death.This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.
A woman at our church decided to use that slower routine, where you stop eating for a few days and then stop drinking. According to her grandchildren she died peacefully surrounded by family, and did so on her own terms.
I wasn't there. But her grandson was. I have no clue as to how easy or difficult it was for her. But it was what she wanted, and what she was willing to do to exit gracefully.I am just befuddled about how ignorant this statement is. Just don't eat or drink, easy peasy death.This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.
A woman at our church decided to use that slower routine, where you stop eating for a few days and then stop drinking. According to her grandchildren she died peacefully surrounded by family, and did so on her own terms.
Death in America is rarely ever simple, and sure the heck isn't humane. Choosing not to eat and drink isn't a path to simple passage.I wasn't there. But her grandson was. I have no clue as to how easy or difficult it was for her. But it was what she wanted, and what she was willing to do to exit gracefully.I am just befuddled about how ignorant this statement is. Just don't eat or drink, easy peasy death.This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.
A woman at our church decided to use that slower routine, where you stop eating for a few days and then stop drinking. According to her grandchildren she died peacefully surrounded by family, and did so on her own terms.
I don't understand why you think they are more objective and precise. You don't use either of them in ways that reflect the precision you have assigned to those words but instead to invoke emotion.Because those words are much more objective and precise. They're both subsets of homicide.Two of the words I avoid in this discussion are "person" and "murder".
But you use feticide and infanticide.
Why?
As opposed, for instance, to the word "murder". There are legal meanings for the word. But they are highly subjective. And the usual meaning, colloquially, is "killings that I disapprove of". I considered the invasion of Iraq a mass murder. The law and most Americans did not.
Tom
And I will again note that neither applies in any right. -icide generally applies to the primary killing of something against it's consent.I don't understand why you think they are more objective and precise. You don't use either of them in ways that reflect the precision you have assigned to those words but instead to invoke emotion.Because those words are much more objective and precise. They're both subsets of homicide.Two of the words I avoid in this discussion are "person" and "murder".
But you use feticide and infanticide.
Why?
As opposed, for instance, to the word "murder". There are legal meanings for the word. But they are highly subjective. And the usual meaning, colloquially, is "killings that I disapprove of". I considered the invasion of Iraq a mass murder. The law and most Americans did not.
Tom
You do not know what the term means.Which is again why things like "killing" hinge on consent.But you still suffer, just not as much. The countries that have legalized it don't seem to have a problem despite occasional misrepresentations by religious people.This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.
A woman at our church decided to use that slower routine, where you stop eating for a few days and then stop drinking. According to her grandchildren she died peacefully surrounded by family, and did so on her own terms.
There are consensual killings, killings done in the course of self defense, and nonconsensual killings.
There are no consensual homicides, though "accidental killings" of humans are accidental homicides.
Killings in the course of self defense are 'justifiable' homicide though I dislike that term. I don't think it's really justified.
Killings done not accidentally and not as the only available recourse in self defense, and without consent are "murders".
When you're already near death it's not nearly as unpleasant as it seems to us. I do agree it's not easy peasy, though.I am just befuddled about how ignorant this statement is. Just don't eat or drink, easy peasy death.This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.
A woman at our church decided to use that slower routine, where you stop eating for a few days and then stop drinking. According to her grandchildren she died peacefully surrounded by family, and did so on her own terms.
I'm talking about the dying part. When a person is near the end, they usually stop eating because they no longer are hungry. Then they stop drinking. Marvin Edwards made it seem like a damned IKEA or Slim Fast for death plan. Don't eat, don't drink and your death will be peaceful. While I haven't seen a lot of people die, I haven't seen anyone die "peacefully" yet.When you're already near death it's not nearly as unpleasant as it seems to us.I am just befuddled about how ignorant this statement is. Just don't eat or drink, easy peasy death.This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.
A woman at our church decided to use that slower routine, where you stop eating for a few days and then stop drinking. According to her grandchildren she died peacefully surrounded by family, and did so on her own terms.
I don't accept your usage to the extent you do not accept mine.You do not know what the term means.Which is again why things like "killing" hinge on consent.But you still suffer, just not as much. The countries that have legalized it don't seem to have a problem despite occasional misrepresentations by religious people.This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.
A woman at our church decided to use that slower routine, where you stop eating for a few days and then stop drinking. According to her grandchildren she died peacefully surrounded by family, and did so on her own terms.
There are consensual killings, killings done in the course of self defense, and nonconsensual killings.
There are no consensual homicides, though "accidental killings" of humans are accidental homicides.
Killings in the course of self defense are 'justifiable' homicide though I dislike that term. I don't think it's really justified.
Killings done not accidentally and not as the only available recourse in self defense, and without consent are "murders".
"Homicide" simply means a person was killed by another person. Euthanasia is consensual homicide.
I'm talking the standard dictionary definition. People typically think that "homicide" means unlawful killing, but it actually just means a human killing another human and doesn't say anything about the legality or intent of the act--it's just by far the most common referent is the criminal act. It's like "abortion" actually only refers to the failure of a pregnancy but it's most commonly used to refer to the deliberate termination of a pregnancy that people don't realize it covers more than that--especially since a spontaneous abortion is more often referred to as a miscarriage these days.I don't accept your usage to the extent you do not accept mine.You do not know what the term means.
"Homicide" simply means a person was killed by another person. Euthanasia is consensual homicide.
As I said, I reject your prescriptivism in favor of what the terms are actually used for in common parlance, which is to say "an act of killing attached to significant culpability".I'm talking the standard dictionary definition. People typically think that "homicide" means unlawful killing, but it actually just means a human killing another human and doesn't say anything about the legality or intent of the act--it's just by far the most common referent is the criminal act. It's like "abortion" actually only refers to the failure of a pregnancy but it's most commonly used to refer to the deliberate termination of a pregnancy that people don't realize it covers more than that--especially since a spontaneous abortion is more often referred to as a miscarriage these days.I don't accept your usage to the extent you do not accept mine.You do not know what the term means.
"Homicide" simply means a person was killed by another person. Euthanasia is consensual homicide.
Thus euthanasia is a form of homicide. Whether criminal or not depends on the circumstances and the law. When it's done at the request of the patient it's certainly consensual homicide.
Morphine really helps with that.I'm talking about the dying part. When a person is near the end, they usually stop eating because they no longer are hungry. Then they stop drinking. Marvin Edwards made it seem like a damned IKEA or Slim Fast for death plan. Don't eat, don't drink and your death will be peaceful. While I haven't seen a lot of people die, I haven't seen anyone die "peacefully" yet.When you're already near death it's not nearly as unpleasant as it seems to us.I am just befuddled about how ignorant this statement is. Just don't eat or drink, easy peasy death.This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.
A woman at our church decided to use that slower routine, where you stop eating for a few days and then stop drinking. According to her grandchildren she died peacefully surrounded by family, and did so on her own terms.