151 replies to this topic

[Nakharar]

Well, I can't think of a better alternative for those who are not able to care for their elders. Those elderly know that they don't have any other choice.
I don't think it's anyone's choice to become terminally-ill and be taken care of. What do you propose we should do to those "terminally-ill" who desperately cling to life? Though their offsping hate fact that they have to deal with this "mental stress" . Even this term is insufficient, because you aren't terminally ill unless you are dead, however remote the chance of survival seems to be. How terrible a fate it must be for those mothers who can't abandon their sick babies and have to take care of them. But then they can leave them to the wolves. I guess that's the practice in backward, aspiring EU-applicant countries. They probably have the worth of litter anyway. But then who are we to know?

[nairi]

I think you're really simplifying the issue Nakharar. I don't think the legality of euthanasia in Holland means that you can prick just about anyone who's a bit "terminally ill". We're talking about very extreme cases, as Stormy pointed out. The question is: what is extreme and where do you draw a line? I'm sure doctors in Holland thoroughly discussed this issue before coming to a conclusion. Not that I'm saying they're right or wrong, but I do think this should be kept in mind when discussing this issue.

[Sasun]

Now imagine having to devote your 24/7 to someone terminally ill.

Why not? Who said life is easy? One should think before having a child, that it is not her choice that the child is healthy or sick or terribly sick. So if one choses to have a child then having a terminally ill child is one of the possibilities. Thinking ahead is useful.

And imagine this being a baby that you are the parent of and can't give away elsewhere and just ignore. Now that would have been cruel.

Sometimes life can be tough, but that should not be a reason to end another person's life. That would be more cruel, I mean killing for a selfish reason.

[Sasun]

I think you're really simplifying the issue Nakharar. I don't think the legality of euthanasia in Holland means that you can prick just about anyone who's a bit "terminally ill". We're talking about very extreme cases, as Stormy pointed out. The question is: what is extreme and where do you draw a line? I'm sure doctors in Holland thoroughly discussed this issue before coming to a conclusion. Not that I'm saying they're right or wrong, but I do think this should be kept in mind when discussing this issue.

Nairi, drawing a line means this person's life is important but that other person's life is not that important, we can do away with it. So then maintaining life becomes a question of convenience. I do not believe a bit that a parent killing his own child cares about the child, they are deceiving themselves and others. They care about themselves only. And doctor's who would assist a killing are nothing more than butchers. Butchers are better than such doctors because they don't call themselves doctors.

[Nakharar]

I think you're really simplifying the issue Nakharar. I don't think the legality of euthanasia in Holland means that you can prick just about anyone who's a bit "terminally ill". We're talking about very extreme cases, as Stormy pointed out. The question is: what is extreme and where do you draw a line? I'm sure doctors in Holland thoroughly discussed this issue before coming to a conclusion. Not that I'm saying they're right or wrong, but I do think this should be kept in mind when discussing this issue.

That concept itself goes into semantics so there is no such thing being a bit "terminally ill". Anyone who succumbs to an illness with a low rate of survival falls into this category so we are talking about percentages here. If someone is in the lower percentiles then tough luck. It's not as easy as that. Free will should be the self-evident criteria.

[nairi]

So the concept of saving someone's life is as controversial as euthanasia. In fact, the whole medical/scientific world should be abolished because we are not following god's will.

[Sasun]

So the concept of saving someone's life is as controversial as euthanasia. In fact, the whole medical/scientific world should be abolished because we are not following god's will.

Why is that? I think it is God's will that we help others.

[Nakharar]

So the concept of saving someone's life is as controversial as euthanasia. In fact, the whole medical/scientific world should be abolished because we are not following god's will.

I don't think anyone implied such a thing. Argument for argument's sake isn't an argument.

[Sip]

The question to me is not whether killing the babies is right or wrong, good or bad ... the question is who's going to pay for them?

If their parents can afford their care and want to keep them alive, hey, more power to them. Just don't ask me to support a terminally ill or a severely retarded child that is going to be nothing but a drain on society with no potential to contribute anything back. Put them and us out of their misery ... and the sooner the better.

[Nakharar]

So you couldn't blame us if we as a society would want to see your children put down if they happened to be handicapped. Why should we share your burden? I'll rather buy me a SUV.

[Sip]

Exactly. I would never expect society to foot the bill for my "moral" dilemmas.

[Nakharar]

If individuals are seen as a liability by some this can also be projected to societies at large. I assume you have nothing to complain and cry about that Armenians were seen as a liability once by others to get rid of. They were also justified according to their own reasoning weren't they?

[vava]

I think your views would change completely if you were to be (in your terms) 'cursed' with a child or relative suffering from some form of mental or physical retardation. Look at the blind - most blind people are now, thanks to the graces of our society, able to work/communicate/live successful, beneficial lives. It wasn't that long ago that if you were born blind you had little hope - what would have happened if we as a society had simply deemed them to be a burden, and killed them off?

[DominO]

The question to me is not whether killing the babies is right or wrong, good or bad ... the question is who's going to pay for them?

If their parents can afford their care and want to keep them alive, hey, more power to them. Just don't ask me to support a terminally ill or a severely retarded child that is going to be nothing but a drain on society with no potential to contribute anything back.  Put them and us out of their misery ... and the sooner the better.

Sometimes I think you should not say anything... here an example of "sometimes." How could you say something like this, I wonder.

BTW, why should our health care system pay for the treatments of illnesses caused by smoke, alchool, what about gun owners? What about car drivers? Why should those not driving pay by their taxes the part of healthcare system etc...

Why should I breath the poluted air caused by cars when I don't drive?

Why don't we kill animals that are not in our food chain? Afterall, their IQ is probably lower than the most retarded child, and probably their life expectancy is lower than tha few years that an ill child could expect to live?

[DominO]

I think your views would change completely if you were to be (in your terms) 'cursed' with a child or relative suffering from some form of mental or physical retardation. Look at the blind - most blind people are now, thanks to the graces of our society, able to work/communicate/live successful, beneficial lives. It wasn't that long ago that if you were born blind you had little hope - what would have happened if we as a society had simply deemed them to be a burden, and killed them off?

Agree 100%

[Sip]

BTW, why should our health care system pay for the treatments of illnesses caused by smoke, alchool, what about gun owners? What about car drivers? Why should those not driving pay by their taxes the part of healthcare system etc...

I don't think we should pay for the health care needs in instances where things are directly caused by smoking and alcohol and other drug abuse ... same goes with obescity (unless it's an actual medical problem and not just poor diet and lack of exercise). But this is beyond the subject here. The question here is why should we force a terminally ill baby to a life of hell?

Vava, I don't think blindness or a general handicap is a "terminal disease". I fully agree with you that many of those types of kids can grow to be valuable members of society. I was referring to kids that are born with SEVERE defects and/or diseases when we know with high certainty that they will NOT have any form of a life outside of a medical facility and are only dragging on their lives to make ourselves feel better "morally". Will we be able to cure more and more things in the future? Sure. But I see euthanasia as quite justified.

And I highly doubt this would change if it were my child. I would pull the plug myself if the need arose ... and furthermore, if I were myself to one day become terminally ill and unable to take care of myself with grim outlook on recovering, I wouldn't hesitate much before staring down at the other end of my 9mm and pulling the trigger.

[Azat]

Sip, I have a very hard time reading the last few posts you have here. I think you are saying all these things because you just have not been faced with any of them(And I hope that you never do), but your prospective on "life" would be greatly different if you had.

As far as the baby think I tend to agree with the practice in Holland, but not whole heartedly.

[Sip]

Azat, maybe under different circumstances my view would be different ... I don't know. But I have never been one of those who values life too much. I think human life is highly highly overrated.

[nairi]

Azat, maybe under different circumstances my view would be different ... I don't know. But I have never been one of those who values life too much.  I think human life is highly highly overrated.

[Arpa]

Azat, maybe under different circumstances my view would be different ... I don't know. But I have never been one of those who values life too much.  I think human life is highly highly overrated.

It all depends on whose life it is.
We all do bad things to our bodies, we even go 4=wheeling in the desert. But have you asked your parents, your siblings or even your friends and aquaintances how they value YOUR life?