Do we ALL have a "right to die"?

[Unknown Soldier]

I hope you understand that nobody here is judging anyone due to their age or disabilities, and nobody here has ever suggested that anyone should ever be forced to have help with ending their own lives. Of course that would be murder. It's just that a lot of us want that option for ourselves. I hope you can at least understand that.

And certainly, that is the fraud of this thread.

A "fraudulent" thread? What exactly is that?

It should be titled "I am against euthanasia and all others are wrong" instead of purporting to be anything else.

I see I have the right to die but no right to my opinion.

Unknown Soldier is doing a lot of accusatory posting regarding the motives of people in here with no real signs of being interested in discussion.

Again, I've learned to think critically about what I'm told. If it sounds like baloney, then it probably is baloney. And like I've already explained, I want to see this good coming from the euthanasia crowd before I believe any of it. So far it's all hot air and no substance.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

What about soft suicide, not following your doctor's suggestions?

I've never heard the term "soft suicide" before, but in my view nobody is required to follow any doctor's suggestions nor must they undergo medical treatment they don't want.

Giving up your favorite foods, and so forth?

I'm against force-feeding adults if that's what you're asking.

On the other side of that coin, I can tell you about one of my neighbors who was a retarded man who did himself in by deliberately overeating. He got so big that his heart gave out. I understand that he did it because he was being mistreated by our neighbors. It's a very sad case that is tragically common in that some disabled people seek death not because of their physical condition but because they are being abused or neglected. So if some people do try suicide or commit suicide, the reason is often because they cannot live with the cruelty they suffer. I seem to be the only person on this thread who faces this fact.

What are old people supposed to get out of life?

I'm not sure why I'm supposed to know the answer to that question, but as far as I'm concerned age should not affect the quality of a person's life any more than nature dictates. If we as a society have a system in effect that adversely impacts people based on their age, and we do have such a system, then that system needs badly to change and change now.

So if people reach an age where they feel they want to die, then changing the system is a likely solution to that problem.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Unknown Soldier, you are ignoring all the facts being laid before you about individual choice in intolerable situations and safety nets in the legislation, all of which should alleviate your concerns about assisted suicide being a cover for murder - but evidently doesn't.

So you insist I accept everything I read in an online forum as "fact." I can understand why you would so insist.

Please answer this question.

What makes you the most appropriate person to make end of life decisions for me?

That's a very strange question considering that I don't make any decisions for you and never will. But if I did have my way, I'd completely revamp healthcare in America. I'd clean up the nursing homes, hospitals, rehabs and clinics making them free of abuse and neglect providing the best medical care possible. I would also provide the best treatment available for anybody suffering with pain or discomfort. And for those who need to live in government-subsidized housing due to age or disability, I'd make sure that housing is clean, safe, secure, roomy, and located in areas with low crime and opportunities to socialize with nice people.

I could say so much more, but if I had my way, then suicide for the dying would become moot nobody wanting to make such a foolish and tragic decision.

Everything you say in your second and third paragraphs describes an honourable and just goal, but it doesn't relate to the issue here. Quality of health care certainly deserves a thread of its own.

It's a shame how poor healthcare is creating this "death with dignity" mess. The insurance companies are dictating who gets what treatment, and it's in the insurance companies' financial interests to get the dying dead as soon as possible so those companies don't need to pay for what they promised to pay.

Even if there was a well run and caring medical system there will be people whose disease processes make their lives intolerable. This is somewhat academic, as I live in a different country to you, but this is an isssue that crosses borders and you are on record in this thread as wanting to make that right to choose illegal.

You're making the same mistaken assumption that many of the other death advocates here are making: That the talk about people choosing to die is true. That might sound nice on paper, but in practice euthanasia can and often does go quickly from voluntary to involuntary.

Not one person in this thread is advocating for the right of societies, relatives or carers to terminate another's existence.

There's no way you can know that's true. As for me, I've learned to be slow to believe the sugar-coated talk that rarely if ever turns out to be anything more than hot air. I'd be an idiot to trust people who refuse me the right to live a quality life only to tell me I have a right to die.

We each, as individuals, want the right to be aided if we ever come to the point where life is intolerable and we choose to end it, cleanly and quietly, without loved ones having to find the body and without having to forfeit the chance to say "goodbye".

So you believe that it's that nice? I've read reports that dying people have been drowned and frozen to death. So there's your "death with dignity." You can't say you weren't warned.

We each should be entitled to make that "foolish and tragic decision".

Not when it comes at the cost of endangering the lives of other people.

It is your right to choose for yourself, (and I am very glad that the person you encountered when you were considering it was empathic and concerned enough to identify that it was not truly your wish. What better proof could you have that the checks and balances work?).

I already explained that she seemed to feel guilty offering such a horrible thing dressed up as something nice. That's why she talked me out of it.

You want to work to deny others that right.

There is no such right.

That is neither honourable nor just.

This whole thread is really bizarre! I suppose there isn't anything that's so evil that people won't twist it to make it sound good. That evidently includes telling those who want to save lives that they are "neither honorable nor just."

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Not one person in this thread is advocating for the right of societies, relatives or carers to terminate another's existence.

There's no way you can know that's true.

There is. I can read, and see what they are advocating.

I find it irritating that when you answer me, and others, you don't address what was actually said.

 

[abaddon]

If he finds other people's minds to be opaque then it'd be difficult to address what anyone says. It'd leave him with little to reference but his own mind so he'd have to fill in both sides of a convo. Being a moralizer makes it likely he'll fill in the other's side with some very negative stuff. A lifetime of people getting irritated at his incomprehension might cause a fellow to form a defensive stance against other people.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Not one person in this thread is advocating for the right of societies, relatives or carers to terminate another's existence.

There's no way you can know that's true.

There is. I can read, and see what they are advocating.

I see some posts. What they're really advocating is not so obvious. I don't always believe what people say.

I find it irritating that when you answer me, and others, you don't address what was actually said.

All anybody needs to do is read post 323 to see proof that I do address what people post. Post 324 is another matter.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

If he finds other people's minds to be opaque then it'd be difficult to address what anyone says. It'd leave him with little to reference but his own mind so he'd have to fill in both sides of a convo. Being a moralizer makes it likely he'll fill in the other's side with some very negative stuff. A lifetime of people getting irritated at his incomprehension might cause a fellow to form a defensive stance against other people.

I must protest this ad hominem! You should address Spike's arguments rather than attack him.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

All anybody needs to do is read post 323 to see proof that I do address what people post. Post 324 is another matter.

FYI: It's better to use links than reference post numbers--if a thread gets edited for some reason the numbers can change.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

If he finds other people's minds to be opaque then it'd be difficult to address what anyone says. It'd leave him with little to reference but his own mind so he'd have to fill in both sides of a convo. Being a moralizer makes it likely he'll fill in the other's side with some very negative stuff. A lifetime of people getting irritated at his incomprehension might cause a fellow to form a defensive stance against other people.

I must protest this ad hominem! You should address Spike's arguments rather than attack him.

Thanks for the defence, but I don't think abaddon was talking about me.

And, not that it really matters, I am "her".

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I think you have misunderstood what I was trying to say. We obviously have very different views on this, and I doubt we will ever convince each other to change those views. I will repeat that nobody should ever be forced to make the choice to end their lives with or without help. It must be a decision made by someone who is fully oriented and feels that their suffering is overwhelming and who asks to have help to end their suffering. It's not something done without a lot of support and careful consideration.

I already rebutted what your claiming here. It's very naive to believe that anything is done that way much less what may put your life in jeopardy.

Yes, I did give an example of an anecdotal experience, mostly to agree with you that it sometimes happens but that it's very rare for someone to murder a family member due to their extreme suffering, but it does sometimes happen in very rare instances. While I would never condone murdering someone with Huntington's Disease, I can understand how difficult it must have been for the woman who killed her two sons to watch them suffer in ways that most people can't even imagine. She took full responsibility for her crime and never tried to justify it to anyone else.

We can only imagine what it was like for those poor boys to die that way. I've heard that even relatively minor wounds from small caliber bullets can be extremely painful.

I hope you understand that nobody here is judging anyone due to their age or disabilities, and nobody here has ever suggested that anyone should ever be forced to have help with ending their own lives. Of course that would be murder. It's just that a lot of us want that option for ourselves. I hope you can at least understand that.

I can understand that I don't believe what you've posted here. In my 45 years being disabled, I've heard people many times people make claims that start out like this: "Now--nobody is trying to hurt the disabled..." And then they to proceed to do exactly that!

That was really the only point that those who disagree with you were trying to make.

I'm not sure how you managed to read their minds especially after you evidently failed to read the cursing, name-calling, and insults they posted repeatedly on this thread and which were directed at me. It looks like their point is that I have a right to die and no right to disagree with them.

I see no point in continuing this discussion. I think we've all explained why we feel the way we do. You are just as entitled to your opinion as the rest of us are.

Tell your buddies that as soon as they can stop cursing at me and calling me names.

It's not unusual for people to disagree on topics like this. My hope is that there will never be any hard feelings, and people will try to understand where someone else is coming from when their opinion Is one that most of us don't support.

As long as you turn a blind eye to the deceit and intolerant bigotry on your side of this issue, there will be hard feelings on my part.

Anyway, I feel really good about what I've done on this thread. I took on all comers on a very slanted playing field and came out the winner. Truth and goodness sometimes prevail!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Anyway, I feel really good about what I've done on this thread. I took on all comers on a very slanted playing field and came out the winner. Truth and goodness sometimes prevail!

You did a great job of accusing people of supporting eugenics. And having a Musk like approach on managing individual cases of people suffering from either short-term but assured terminal suffering and permanent long-term intense suffering.

 

[lostone]

I think you have misunderstood what I was trying to say. We obviously have very different views on this, and I doubt we will ever convince each other to change those views. I will repeat that nobody should ever be forced to make the choice to end their lives with or without help. It must be a decision made by someone who is fully oriented and feels that their suffering is overwhelming and who asks to have help to end their suffering. It's not something done without a lot of support and careful consideration.

I already rebutted what your claiming here. It's very naive to believe that anything is done that way much less what may put your life in jeopardy.

Yes, I did give an example of an anecdotal experience, mostly to agree with you that it sometimes happens but that it's very rare for someone to murder a family member due to their extreme suffering, but it does sometimes happen in very rare instances. While I would never condone murdering someone with Huntington's Disease, I can understand how difficult it must have been for the woman who killed her two sons to watch them suffer in ways that most people can't even imagine. She took full responsibility for her crime and never tried to justify it to anyone else.

We can only imagine what it was like for those poor boys to die that way. I've heard that even relatively minor wounds from small caliber bullets can be extremely painful.

I hope you understand that nobody here is judging anyone due to their age or disabilities, and nobody here has ever suggested that anyone should ever be forced to have help with ending their own lives. Of course that would be murder. It's just that a lot of us want that option for ourselves. I hope you can at least understand that.

I can understand that I don't believe what you've posted here. In my 45 years being disabled, I've heard people many times people make claims that start out like this: "Now--nobody is trying to hurt the disabled..." And then they to proceed to do exactly that!

That was really the only point that those who disagree with you were trying to make.

I'm not sure how you managed to read their minds especially after you evidently failed to read the cursing, name-calling, and insults they posted repeatedly on this thread and which were directed at me. It looks like their point is that I have a right to die and no right to disagree with them.

I see no point in continuing this discussion. I think we've all explained why we feel the way we do. You are just as entitled to your opinion as the rest of us are.

Tell your buddies that as soon as they can stop cursing at me and calling me names.

It's not unusual for people to disagree on topics like this. My hope is that there will never be any hard feelings, and people will try to understand where someone else is coming from when their opinion Is one that most of us don't support.

As long as you turn a blind eye to the deceit and intolerant bigotry on your side of this issue, there will be hard feelings on my part.

Anyway, I feel really good about what I've done on this thread. I took on all comers on a very slanted playing field and came out the winner. Truth and goodness sometimes prevail!

I don't see any way that you reached that conclusion. As I see it, you persuaded no one. I think that you just want to declare victory and move on.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Anyway, I feel really good about what I've done on this thread. I took on all comers on a very slanted playing field and came out the winner. Truth and goodness sometimes prevail!

I don't see any way that you reached that conclusion.

Which conclusion? I posted more than one. It's best not to be ambiguous. But let me reiterate that I do feel good about my argumentation on this thread. I've studied logic and debate, and I know that I put what I've learned into practice here on this thread (and everywhere, for that matter). I see the abuse that was inflicted on me by the opposition as resulting from their desperation and their being completely inept at making their case.

As I see it, you persuaded no one.

In that case sound logic does not persuade them. That's their problem more than mine.

I think that you just want to declare victory and move on.

I'll declare victory and stick around if it will help. I think I've literally saved the lives of some innocent people. I'm proud of that!

 

[lostone]

Anyway, I feel really good about what I've done on this thread. I took on all comers on a very slanted playing field and came out the winner. Truth and goodness sometimes prevail!

I don't see any way that you reached that conclusion.

Which conclusion? I posted more than one. It's best not to be ambiguous. But let me reiterate that I do feel good about my argumentation on this thread. I've studied logic and debate, and I know that I put what I've learned into practice here on this thread (and everywhere, for that matter). I see the abuse that was inflicted on me by the opposition as resulting from their desperation and their being completely inept at making their case.

As I see it, you persuaded no one.

In that case sound logic does not persuade them. That's their problem more than mine.

I think that you just want to declare victory and move on.

I'll declare victory and stick around if it will help. I think I've literally saved the lives of some innocent people. I'm proud of that!

If you have changed no minds, you have saved no lives. Sooner or later, we all die anyhow.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

If you have changed no minds, you have saved no lives. Sooner or later, we all die anyhow.

Years ago I remember hearing some Christian leaders criticize atheists for devaluing human life and in particular for the tendency on the part of atheists to support euthanasia. I scoffed at that talk as a lot of religious propaganda. Now I'm seeing that there's some truth to what those Christians were saying.

 

[lostone]

If you have changed no minds, you have saved no lives. Sooner or later, we all die anyhow.

Years ago I remember hearing some Christian leaders criticize atheists for devaluing human life and in particular for the tendency on the part of atheists to support euthanasia. I scoffed at that talk as a lot of religious propaganda. Now I'm seeing that there's some truth to what those Christians were saying.

Most people here have expressed support for the right of individuals top make their own choices, for themselves. So do many religious people. Your personal approval is not required, nor asked for.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

If you have changed no minds, you have saved no lives. Sooner or later, we all die anyhow.

Years ago I remember hearing some Christian leaders criticize atheists for devaluing human life and in particular for the tendency on the part of atheists to support euthanasia. I scoffed at that talk as a lot of religious propaganda. Now I'm seeing that there's some truth to what those Christians were saying.

Most people here have expressed support for the right of individuals top make their own choices, for themselves.

Then you better darned well hope that nobody exercises their supposed right to make their own choice to rob, rape, or murder you--for themselves. Ted Bundy evidently believed he had that right--for himself. Do you agree with him?

So do many religious people.

That is correct. I've heard Christians say that killing themselves is a short-cut to see Jesus. That's a heck of a way to see somebody.

Your personal approval is not required, nor asked for.

But it is my right to make my own choices like you just said. So why deny me the choice to tell everybody to live on? I wish to make that choice--for myself. It's my right!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Anyway, I feel really good about what I've done on this thread. I took on all comers on a very slanted playing field and came out the winner. Truth and goodness sometimes prevail!

I don't see any way that you reached that conclusion.

Which conclusion? I posted more than one. It's best not to be ambiguous. But let me reiterate that I do feel good about my argumentation on this thread. I've studied logic and debate, and I know that I put what I've learned into practice here on this thread (and everywhere, for that matter). I see the abuse that was inflicted on me by the opposition as resulting from their desperation and their being completely inept at making their case.

As I see it, you persuaded no one.

In that case sound logic does not persuade them. That's their problem more than mine.

I think that you just want to declare victory and move on.

I'll declare victory and stick around if it will help. I think I've literally saved the lives of some innocent people. I'm proud of that!

If you have changed no minds, you have saved no lives. Sooner or later, we all die anyhow.

Dude, spoiler alert!!!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If you have changed no minds, you have saved no lives. Sooner or later, we all die anyhow.

Years ago I remember hearing some Christian leaders criticize atheists for devaluing human life and in particular for the tendency on the part of atheists to support euthanasia. I scoffed at that talk as a lot of religious propaganda. Now I'm seeing that there's some truth to what those Christians were saying.

Most people here have expressed support for the right of individuals top make their own choices, for themselves.

Then you better darned well hope that nobody exercises their supposed right to make their own choice to rob, rape, or murder you--for themselves. Ted Bundy evidently believed he had that right--for himself. Do you agree with him?

In what universe is this remotely considered arguing in good faith?

 

[pood]

If you have changed no minds, you have saved no lives. Sooner or later, we all die anyhow.

Years ago I remember hearing some Christian leaders criticize atheists for devaluing human life and in particular for the tendency on the part of atheists to support euthanasia. I scoffed at that talk as a lot of religious propaganda. Now I'm seeing that there's some truth to what those Christians were saying.

Most people here have expressed support for the right of individuals top make their own choices, for themselves.

Then you better darned well hope that nobody exercises their supposed right to make their own choice to rob, rape, or murder you--for themselves. Ted Bundy evidently believed he had that right--for himself. Do you agree with him?

You know perfectly well what lostone meant in the context of this thread, and it had nothing to do with Ted Bundy. This is beyond bad-faith arguing.

So do many religious people.

That is correct. I've heard Christians say that killing themselves is a short-cut to see Jesus. That's a heck of a way to see somebody.

Your personal approval is not required, nor asked for.

But it is my right to make my own choices like you just said. So why deny me the choice to tell everybody to live on? I wish to make that choice--for myself. It's my right!

Nobody is denying you the choice to tell people to live on. What is being denied is your evident desire to force them to live on, against their wishes. You do not have that right, any more than Ted Bundy has the ”right” to kill anyone.