KSG_Standard Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I prefer to think of ALL human lives as being precious. In my world view Human life is precious, animal life is not (i'm not advocating cruelty to animals) If you want to kill yourself, do it...but I think it's wrong to have someone help you do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bol316 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 It's funny that it's considered cruel to let a pet suffer but not people. =D> =D> Of course the Michael Vicks of this world will disagree. Their thinking is just plain off. I cant imagine why anyone would want to kill/maim an animal for fun. How they can have a poor sick pet with a sad look on its face and not care? My wife works as a vet tech and she is appalled by the people who turn down pain killers for their animals or buy much less then is necessary. So many people really think very small. They view human life as "life". Anything else isnt really life. I used to become very angry about/at people like this. I am beginning to learn how counterproductive anger really is. You must find a way to visualize to those people what a poor' date=' sick person/animal is going through. Sadly what you find is many people view animals as "toys", not family members. We certainly dont view our dog that way. As for assisted suicide, you have to beat every other possibility bloody before going down that road. However in many cases there is simply no way to ease someones suffering. There is something wrong with them that we as people simply are unable to fix. People are forced into this world, they didnt ask to come here. Therefore they shouldnt be forced to stay. Whats another way of saying: a torturous place that someone is forced to live in, and may never leave, no matter what they want or fell? Jail. Some people live in a jail not of their own making. Let them out. Which leads to why some people wont let people like these go, if they so wish it. They are willfully or unintentionally ignorant to what they are suffering and/or wish to impose their way of thinking on others. One way they do this is legislating morality. The way I see it is, if you think suicide is wrong, dont kill [b']yourself[/b]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wicked1 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 =D> =D> Of course the Michael Vicks of this world will disagree. Their thinking is just plain off. I cant imagine why anyone would want to kill/maim an animal for fun. How they can have a poor sick pet with a sad look on its face and not care? My wife works as a vet tech and she is appalled by the people who turn down pain killers for their animals or buy much less then is necessary. So many people really think very small. They view human life as "life". Anything else isnt really life. I used to become very angry about/at people like this. I am beginning to learn how counterproductive anger really is. You must find a way to visualize to those people what a poor' date=' sick person/animal is going through. Sadly what you find is many people view animals as "toys", not family members. We certainly dont view our dog that way. [/quote'] I rarely cried as hard as I did the day I had to put a dog to sleep. I was lucky that our vet was quite sympathetic and actually let me be in the room with him while she gave him the shot. (Homz couldn't even handle going to the vet with us, much less staying with Zar while he died). He was ready to go, but it was still hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gitfidl Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I just lost a good friend to cancer (Korean War veteran). Good guy. Miserable way to go. He'd have much rather been killed in Korea. I know the churches preach against it but God judges us all individually. You know we do not think twice about having dogs and cats "put to sleep" (or fetuses) and some people "euthanize" perfectly good dogs and cats just because they are tired of them. (most of them say they are liberals)(I believe that!) I don't think American morals are what used to be, so I can see more and more states letting people choose their poison. (How fast would you died if you drank a bottle of Wild Turkey 101 proof whiskey?) You want to talk about a fast likker! Whew! .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callen3615 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 apples to oranges...for the most part. How? Legal vs Illegal???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callen3615 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 It's funny that it's considered cruel to let a pet suffer but not people. Yes, its funny that you abuse an animal and go to jail, and you kill a baby and its ok. But lets not get into that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoyt Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 i have experienced a similar situation. i agree with you completely. I agree as well. Having seen parents die -- without docs who would prescribe massive doses of morphine -- I think people should have that choice when the prognosis is bleak. It not only saves the patient from pain, etc., but their loved ones as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlekenny Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I rarely cried as hard as I did the day I had to put a dog to sleep. I was lucky that our vet was quite sympathetic and actually let me be in the room with him while she gave him the shot. (Homz couldn't even handle going to the vet with us' date=' much less staying with Zar while he died). He was ready to go, but it was still hard. [/quote'] +1, the most heart wrenching thing I've ever experienced was when we had to put our dog down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bol316 Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 You know we do not think twice about having dogs and cats "put to sleep" (or fetuses) and some people "euthanize" perfectly good dogs and cats just because they are tired of them. (most of them say they are liberals)(I believe that!) Yes, they sent pollsters out to vet clinics and polled people at the front desk before they had their animals euthanized "Are u a conservative or a liberal? We just need it for Busters file". You people have to be kidding me with this. Right ?! You cant actually believe this. Straw man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axuality Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Must be the week for heavy topics - but jokes aside I am all for it Homz. We treat our pets better than we treat our fellow humans who are suffering. The Pope came out yesterday and said that condoms encourage the spread of AIDS. What an ignoramus. No wonder people of Christian faith including catholics are confused and dont know why they cant relate to the institution that is their Church. But I was brought up with Christian values and I can live them without needing to heed myths and rubbish that SOME of the traditional churches espouse. Yes, some of the trad churches (or most) are full of bunkum. And I too am a very steadfast Christian. And I'm not a Catholic, and I'm not down on condoms or birth control, but I'm not sure about your Pope statement. It seems like I might have heard that there is statistical evidence that says places that push the use of condoms DO have higher rates of undesirable things such as AIDS, for example. Don't quote me, just offering what I think I've heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axuality Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 :D Yes' date=' they sent pollsters out to vet clinics and polled people at the front desk before they had their animals euthanized "Are u a conservative or a liberal? We just need it for Busters file". You people have to be kidding me with this. Right ?! You cant actually believe this. Straw man![/quote'] ---Hi fella. I'm not sure what you're saying, but let me respond to what I think you're saying. I'm not a conservative, but not a liberal either. I have HUGELY strong agreements with things on both sides. I think the govt. should probably be able to tell you how many kids to have (considering the population of the earth), but I also think that profanity and nudity in movies is unnecessary and even harmful in the large sense. I do recognize however (as long as it's liberals that are up for discussion) that there are predictable patterns in the behavior of libs (and cons of course). One of those patterns is that a higher degree of liberals do not want to admit (or realize) that there are predictable patterns about them. That's a funny one. But let's go on. I believe (more than believe actually) that that unpredictability is pure hogwash. There are VERY predictable patterns that can be based on political bent, or skin color, or sexual orientation or age, or the brand of guitar owned, or most any other parameter conceivable in the human scene. I believe for example, that if you had a group of 1000 people who purposely drive above the speed limit, there would be more liberals among them than conservatives. You may declare that it would be cons (which it might be), but to declare that there is no pattern to it is what I consider purely mistaken. Again, like it or not, stereotyping is a possibility in most issues in life. Like it or not. We stereotype in order to make daily decisions without even thinking about it. And that's okay in most cases. In a group of 1000 blacks, you'd find a higher % of them can dance cool, than a group of 1000 whites. So what? Doesn't make blacks or whites superior or inferior. Now for those of you that are basically asleep, I want to point out that this doesn't mean that EVERY black can dance better than EVERY white. We're talking percentages. If you had a group of 1000 people who would overcharge their neighbor for a good or a service, I think that you'd find more conservs in that group. A group of 1000 dope smokers would contain more libs. A group of people who tell more lies during the day (so-called "innocent, white lies" included) would be libs. In a group of 1000 people who think the universe is only 6000 years old, you'd find more cons. I think that we should do research and publish what we find about liberals vs. conservatives. It might raise the standard of the people we elect to office. Of all convicted felons, do more vote democrat or repub? I bet it's not even very close. What teens get pregnant more often? Kids of cons or libs? Who gets in more fist fights? Who is more afraid of death? Who is more likely in a debate to call you an idiot and get up and walk away, refusing to take part? (I think the answer to this one is easy) ha ha ha And finally, of those of you that are going, this guy is full of ****, are you libs or cons? You know the answer. And of the people going, Hm, he may or does have something, are you libs or cons? You know. I also think that (impractical as it is) no one should be allowed to earn over about 100k per year. --and of course that would mean that no landlord could be charging $4000 a month for a Manhattan apartment, which of course would put them in reach of a 100k income-earner. I also think that the most basic reason that free choice people favor abortion (outside of physical health and rape reasons) is because they want to be freer to have sex any time and with anyone they want. So I ain't no lib and I ain't no con. hee hee this has been fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruznolfart Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 - And finally' date=' of those of you that are going, this guy is full of ****, [/quote'] that would be me. =D>/ are you libs or cons? You know the answer. I'm a gun-totin', dirt-farmin' libertarian Buddhist who thinks folks with more answers than questions are usually charlatans and always bullbleepers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 I'm a gun-totin'' date=' dirt-farmin' libertarian Buddhist who thinks folks with more answers than questions are usually charlatans and always bullbleepers. [/quote'] You should get a t-shirt with that on it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daerious Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 It seems like I might have heard that there is statistical evidence that says places that push the use of condoms DO have higher rates of undesirable things such as AIDS' date=' for example. Don't quote me, just offering what I think I've heard.[/quote'] That makes sense. But probably not the way some people would interpret it. Bob: Those condom using folks are evil and God is punishing them, just look, everywhere they go pushing the rubbers, the folks get the aids. Billy: Those condom pushers sure do have a great understanding of patterns of disease related to specific economic and social indicators. Everywhere they push them rubbers turns out to be just the places that needed them most! Like any situation, stats are generally rubbish because they can be twisted to "prove" anything. To those who have read my gun control ideals, this seems like a hypocritical post. In my posts about gun control I use statistics in a way some people may view as trying to prove... banning guns increases crime rates, for example. This is NOT the case at all. I don't have to prove anything of the such in that case. I only have to prove that your suggestions, and the statistics you use to "prove" them effective, are rubbish. So my use of statistics is to prove that statistics are rubbish rather than to prove a specific point made by the stats. Also, while statistics are generally rubbish, especially the CNN'd version we finally get, history on the other hand is an extremely accurate crystal ball. Anyway, yall can have your post back... sorry... again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gitfidl Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Bol316 -- Liberals can be fun to "blame" for stuff. (and they seem to get a lot out of "the blame game" too). Everybody thinks it's OK to euthanize pets -- they ar e considered property. Most people would only euthanize IF the pet is old an suff'rin. But some will have then euthanized just because they are tired of it. (Cats especially). I think that is "a problem," but then as other posters on the forum have suggested it's not just animals who get the ax. AND in other countries wives and kids are killed and nothing done ... the world has not been civilized yet. There is a school of thought called "situational ethics" that says what is "right" or "wrong" depends and are no absolutes. (Well where do you suppose that kind of thinking is going on -- being written about? A bible college or Harvard? Fallwell's Christian university or Berkeley? Oral Roberts U. or Yale? So there are clusters of people whose views are diverse enough to think it is OK to euthanize kids -- but only in some instances. Wives? Probably more instances. Husbands ... never .. MEN are husbands. Also think about this -- if someone is atheist (really atheist) then morality is an empty word since they just die and rot for a million years. What moral rules apply to THAT life? None (there is a school of thought called Existentialist that says there is no morality -- only risk of being caught). Major contrast in individual thinking depending on views about infinity and who they hang out with .. where they gravitate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted March 21, 2009 Author Share Posted March 21, 2009 Bol316 -- Liberals can be fun to "blame" for stuff. (and they seem to get a lot out of "the blame game" too). Everybody thinks it's OK to euthanize pets -- they ar e considered property. Most people would only euthanize IF the pet is old an suff'rin. But some will have then euthanized just because they are tired of it. (Cats especially). I think that is "a problem' date='" but then as other posters on the forum have suggested it's not just animals who get the ax. AND in other countries wives and kids are killed and nothing done ... the world has not been civilized yet. There is a school of thought called "situational ethics" that says what is "right" or "wrong" depends and are no absolutes. (Well where do you suppose that kind of thinking is going on -- being written about? A bible college or Harvard? Fallwell's Christian university or Berkeley? Oral Roberts U. or Yale? So there are clusters of people whose views are diverse enough to think it is OK to euthanize kids -- but only in some instances. Wives? Probably more instances. Husbands ... never .. MEN are husbands. Also think about this -- if someone is atheist (really atheist) then morality is an empty word since they just die and rot for a million years. What moral rules apply to THAT life? None (there is a school of thought called Existentialist that says there is no morality -- only risk of being caught). Major contrast in individual thinking depending on views about infinity and who they hang out with .. where they gravitate. [/quote'] I think your gross generalizations are both offensive and utterly ridiculous. I am a liberal and an atheist. I am moral in that I wish the world to be a better place for my children. From that stand point it is always good to promote a happy, healthy, and safe environment for my self and my children. You seem to be under the false impression that religion created the concept of a moral society. Think of it like this if you screw your neighbors wife he might stick a sharp knife in your belly, thus you would be wise to understand the basics of a moral life regardless of your belief in some god concept. This misconception you promote is arrogant and I believe is stems from an insecurity of ones own beliefs. I do understand the word moral itself is derived from the Latin mores and is of religious origins, but here it is being used in a general way to describe a basic character trait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swmcv2007 Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 My friend committed suicide this morning. I feel like it was assisted because no one did enough for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wicked1 Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 My friend committed suicide this morning. I feel like it was assisted because no one did enough for him. Sorry to hear that, man. Sometimes we can never really know the personal hell others go through. It's a shame there's such a stigma attached to mental illness that it prevents people from seeking help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Allen Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 I personally am not for suicide, and I can't ever see me assisting anyone. If they want to, let them. I personally think that one can die with dignity without killing themselves. Millions of folks throughout man's history have died with dignity while fighting horrible illnesses. In fact, we used to hold the people who died with dignity without taking their own lives in high esteem. Now we don't. The way I see it is, that EVERY SECOND I can spend in the company of my wife and son would be worth living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Here's the slippery slope...if we decide that human life is not precious and that it's not to be protected, how far off are we from doctors or government deciding eho lives and who dies? Parents Lose Fight With Doctors to Keep Sick Son Alive Saturday, March 21, 2009 The parents of a seriously ill baby in Britain have said they are "deeply distressed" by a legal ruling which will allow their "only and beloved son" to die. The parents, known as Mr. and Mrs. T, said they planned to "enjoy what little time" they had left with their son who has a rare metabolic disorder and has suffered brain damage and major respiratory failure. Last night the parents’ final possible legal avenue to keep their son alive failed when two Appeal Court judges upheld an earlier High Court ruling giving permission to doctors to allow him to die. The parents said they had battled to keep their son alive because of "his humanity and inherent worth" but they now believed doctors were preparing to switch off his ventilator within the next 24 hours. In a statement issued through their solicitor they said relationships with doctors and staff at the hospital became "very difficult" at the end of last year when medical staff wanted to withdraw treatment while they felt they "had to fight to ensure that he is given every possible chance." The couple said there were "lots of issues which still worry us" but added: "We think we did the right thing even though we were repeatedly told it was hopeless and that we were being irresponsible in not following the medical advice that he should be allowed to die." The parents, who could not face hearing the decision Friday and waited outside the court, went on: "We are and always will be convinced that despite his desperate problems his life is worthwhile and is worth preserving as long as it is possible to do so without causing him undue pain." Click here to read more on this story from the Times of London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruznolfart Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Here's the slippery slope...if we decide that human life is not precious and that it's not to be protected' date=' how far off are we from doctors or government deciding eho lives and who dies?[/quote'] Who do you think decides now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wicked1 Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 It's called futility of care. When there is no hope that a person will ever be able to breathe on his own, who benefits by keeping them on a ventilator. It's sad and I feel for the parents, but hopeless is hopeless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 It's called futility of care. When there is no hope that a person will ever be able to breathe on his own' date=' who benefits by keeping them on a ventilator. It's sad and I feel for the parents, but hopeless is hopeless. [/quote'] So the doctors have the right to decide even against the parents wishes? Seems dangerous to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruznolfart Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 So the doctors have the right to decide even against the parents wishes? Seems dangerous to me. With respect: How does it seem if the situation were reversed and the child needed a life-saving surgical procedure but the parents refused to allow it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoyt Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 I personally am not for suicide' date=' and I can't ever see me assisting anyone. If they want to, let them. I personally think that one can die with dignity without killing themselves. Millions of folks throughout man's history have died with dignity while fighting horrible illnesses. In fact, we used to hold the people who died with dignity without taking their own lives in high esteem. Now we don't. The way I see it is, that EVERY SECOND I can spend in the company of my wife and son would be worth living.[/quote'] James, I say this with all respect and understand what you are saying. But what about if you are in screaming agony; no hope of a cure; unable to recognize your wife and children; but hanging on for months and months; putting your family through the toughest thing a family can go through; forcing them into bankruptcy; forcing them to watch you die in agony without control of your normal functions; and worse. Such pain is as much theirs as yours. I can't speak for you, but in that situation, I would definitely want to go peacefully before wrecking their lives and leaving them with the horrible vision of the last month or two. I pray it never happens to you or anyone else -- but, I've seen it happen. And, I've seen some tight arsed physicians refuse to be compassionate for whatever reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.