The rejection of euthanasia is illogical

I mean euthanasia of the disabled and unhealthy. Let me explain:

Most people reject the idea; they'll say it's immoral, or monstrous; they'll say it's unfair. However, logically speaking, in the interest of the survival of the species these people contribute nothing. They take up space, and consume resources. And yet most, especially the mentally disabled ones, literally contribute nothing.

Perhaps the only value that can come out of them is live research, but once again on strictly emotional grounds, we defy logic and don't allow this to occur.

The reason people reject these kinds of ideas is not on logical grounds, it's on emotional grounds; it's because they defend ideals for the sake of defending ideals instead of because of any practical utilitarian value.

Now one could turn the argument around and say "well, you don't contribute anything either"...and you're free to think that. Although nonetheless one can't deny that there is definitely a difference between the healthy and unhealthy, the mentally fit and mentally insane. A very objective difference. Thus if human beings are to be purely logical, efficient beings, then why do we sustain the useless and defend ideals for the sake of defending ideals?

The reason? Compassion. Human beings are not strictly logical beings. We don't view the world mathematically and in a utilitarian sense; and that's fine. My argument isn't that logical actions are always moral actions, but rather that sometimes humans can be illogical. But then, don't claim to be a logical person and yet defend illogical things.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes but morality is not the only counter-argument.

Involuntary euthanasia is a system wide-open to corruption and exploitation. It would also be almost impossible to regulate. As for voluntary euthanasia, history has shown us that it can be a slippery slope. It also puts a lot of pressure on the most vulnerable members of society, who would do anything to relieve the burden on their families.

Proper palliative care would make euthanasia unnecessary - these people are not going to go on living indefinitely. It also undermines the motivation in doctors to provide good care for their patients, and gives them far too much power. Cutting costs would become the main goal and not saving people's lives. Perhaps even those that are seriously injured and could be saved (to go on to become functioning members of society) would be allowed to die.

I know your new world view advocates the 'survival of the fittest' mentality, but remember that we are not like other animals in many ways. Indeed, I can recall you suggesting that animals who are of no use to us should be disposed of, in order to free up resources for humans. But if humans loose the morality and compassion that sets us apart, what would give us that right?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

does the death penalty qualify as euthanasia?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The death penalty is done for the purpose of justice, not maintenance.

 

Meh, I guess I'm on ignore

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, I'm going to respond to you when I feel like it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm really tired right now.

 

Sounds like Nazi eugenics to me.

 

Sounds like almost everything else humans do, don't it? In fact, can you name anything, any thoughts or actions by humans, that is NOT wide-open to corruption and exploitation?

Again, it's not much different to anything and everything else that human societies do.

But why force others to pay for someone else's children? Surely you can't think that that's right, do you? They didn't have any choices in having the children, why should they have to pay to raise it?

Interesting, ...but would you advocate the same for farmers and ranchers in handling their herds of livestock? ...that they should keep the sick ones, pay for the feed and shelter, even let them breed if they can?

You fail to realize that morality and compassion are human inventions ...and I'd say they were invented just for such arguments as this one!! If you look around the world, you'll see that true human compassion is nothing but a term used, that means very little. Tens of thousands of kids starve to death every single day in Africa ...and humans try to claim that they're compassionate???????? Surely they jest, right???

Almost everyone here believes in evolution, that humans are just animals that evolved from other animals, that there's no such thing as God or the soul. Yet those same people will argue intensely to keep sick animals among the herd, and chance contaminating the entire herd's genetic line. Hmm?

Baron Max

 

I find you unhealthy. Would you care to sign up for the piolet program?

 

Wow. Another ridiculously-ignorant and unsustainable idea from Norsefire that has been squashed within three replies, and yet he carries on.

Why do you even bother, Norse? You don't listen to reason, and you flat out ignore counter arguments. Are you just posting for the sake of posting?

 

death is maintenance?

 

Lack of stamina is a clear sign of weakness and sub-standard genetic stock. You should report to your local Kill-A-Dick centre within twenty four hours in order to be subtracted from the gene pool. Failure to comply will result in a compulsory euthenasia order being executed on your parents, grandparents, siblings, children and first cousins. Have a nice day.


And that Norsefire, is what you are advocating, whether you understand it or not.

 

You're being very vague here, and forgive me if I don't quite understand what you mean. Are you referring to the criminal justice system perhaps? The world of business? I fail to see the comparison between their failings and the fear, grief and death associated with euthanasia.

Again, I fail to see the relevance of this at all.

The usefulness of a herd to a rancher is very straightforward. I'm sure you appreciate that what makes a human useful to society as a whole is infinitely more complicated and subjective.

I fail to realise nothing of the sort. The very fact that compassion and morality are concepts exclusive to humans, shows that we are different from the animals around us.
The 'soul' is a very abstract idea anyway. In many cultures it is not linked directly to God, as with our own, but instead refers to the inner spark - the conscience, the moral compass, the thinking mind if you will - that sets us apart from dead matter or other organisms. Evolution does in no way disprove its existence.
As for the 'contamination of the herd's genetic line', that is nonsense. Someone dying of a terminal disease like cancer is not going to pass this on to anyone else, through their offspring or otherwise. Euthanasia is essentially the 'mercy-killing' of the seriously ill.

And on a last note, just to pick you up on the 'Starving Africa' comment - are you seriously arguing that famine in the sub-Saharan is the result of a lack of compassion?
Their misery is the result of corrupt governments, harsh climates and primitive and unreliable farming methods. Nevertheless, each year billions are sent by more prosperous countries, at no profit to themselves, to try and end the poverty there. Literally thousand of charities exist for this very purpose. Human compassion is alive and well, but perhaps not in all of us

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

norsefire,
why are you so obsessed with putting people 'out of their misery'?
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84191&highlight=euthanasia

 

Cellar_Door, there's no definite evidence that would prove that sentience is exclusive to humans. Quite in the contrary, the more time people invest in studying animal behaviourism the more it turns out that they're more complex than people thought at first, the only barrier here is that our communication level with animals is still very limited.

Coming to cancer. Cancer can be passed down, to some point. If your family has a cancer history then chances are that you are more prone to get it. Plus there are various forms of cancers. If you get lung cancer because you smoked unhealthy amounts of whatever substance then this isn't necessarily a genetic issue. But there is also cancer that can be hereditary such as breast cancer, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, and colorectal cancer. If I'm not mistaken those are caused by gene mutation which then are passed down from the parents to the child, but won't necessarily imply that the child will also develop cancer however the risk factor is a lot higher.

 

No one mentioned sentience.
I was talking about compassion and morality, in response to Baron's assertion that they were human inventions.

And these cancers are most likely to develop post-childbearing age. Again, this is not the point in question.

 

My response about cancer was in response to what you said:
"As for the 'contamination of the herd's genetic line', that is nonsense. Someone dying of a terminal disease like cancer is not going to pass this on to anyone else, through their offspring or otherwise."

What Monsieur Baron was most likely referring to was how this can f*ck up the gene pool of a herd if they'd let a cow with a genetic degeneration or mutation live a normal life amongst the herd; i.e. allowing her to reproduce her f*cked genes. So it's not nonsense.

I only pointed out that cancer can be passed down. "someone dying of a terminal disease like cancer" as you say could have probably already passed down that gene mutation onto his offspring. It can weaken the gene pool, and raise the cancer risk factor by a lot for future generations. So it's quite relevant.
What do you mean by develop post-childbearing age? There are also young women who suffer from breast cancer, ovarian cancer and what not, and the numbers seem to be increasing.

My part about morality was in response to that bit in bold which you said yourself and not Baron:
"The very fact that compassion and morality are concepts exclusive to humans, shows that we are different from the animals around us. In many cultures it is not linked directly to God, as with our own, but instead refers to the inner spark - the conscience, the moral compass, the thinking mind if you will - that sets us apart from dead matter or other organisms."
Compassion is part of sentience. Feeling pity for someone else is a sensation and therefore quite clearly part of sentience. There's no proof out there that would confirm that compassion is exclusive to humans.

 

And what of Christie Brown? Crippled with cerebral palsey from birth and only able to speak guttural words he later went on to be a brilliant painter, poet and author. I would say he contributed more than most, but hey I'm a sucker for the arts. And what about people who are struck later in life with disability what say you should be done about them? I mean for example someone who becomes severely incapacitated. I would agree that those who do become incapacitated, as well as the ill, should be allowed to choose euthanasia otherwise society is just being cruel but there are always the weird exceptions like Jean Dominique Bauby who wrote a book using only one blinking eye with the help of a nurse when he suffered a stroke so severe that he only had use of his mind and this one blinking eye. I do think a mother has a right to abort a child she knows will live with retardation and disability.

Get ready for the emotional drama that will come your way on this subject....you nazi you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Now you see this I do not understand. Your argument is that since these patients will not live indefinitely its better to keep them hanging on EVEN if they choose not to. Then you go on to speak of compassion? :shrug:

We would kill an animal that was in pain and severely disabled and call it compassion but a person in pain or experiencing the psychic pain of complete incapacity should live on because it makes society feel guilt free? I don't see any compassion in that. As a matter of fact Bauby asked to be euthanized and was refused, just because he went on to write something later doesn't mean his quality of life had improved. I think your idea is actually quite cruel. If a mother has the right to abort a fetus based on its being retarded then a living person has a right to choose euthanasia.

Facilities do not cut costs by caring for the severely disabled, actually its a big business where they get government money and the right to use up the patients life savings. There is a lot of money in keeping someone hanging on longer than the patient would even choose to. There is no palliative care for being stuck in a body that can do nothing but having an active mind, I think its barbaric and you call this compassion.

Cellar Door: The usefulness of a herd to a rancher is very straightforward. I'm sure you appreciate that what makes a human useful to society as a whole is infinitely more complicated and subjective.

Yes and that is exactly how the Spartans would have defended their practice of eugenics. Their society was straightforward and had a singular purpose so keeping deformed children would have defeated the goal of their society. The only reason why we do not kill off the sickly is because we no longer have to, I mean think of the small nomadic tribes what good could it have done them to keep children that would need coddling for the rest of their lives draining the resources of a society that needed all able members. Nature sides with Norse, when a lion goes out on the hunt it doesn't attack the able bodied animal of full strength, it attacks the very old or young or those that cannot keep up, nature culls the disabled the least fit by allowing them to die.

 

I've still got the impression that Norsefire didn't express his thoughts clearly enough because he's talking about euthanasing people who don't contribute to our society in any given form and just consume because of their disabilities. And there I think the term Euthanasia is a misnomer. Because euthanasia, the so-called mercy killing, is here to end the life of people who either choose to because of whatever physical suffering, or people who are incapable of living without machines anyway, etc. (I'm actually not sure how or when it's allowed to ask for euthanasia, I guess I should read up on that one, or if anyone already knows the answer to that I'd be glad to hear it) But here he is talking about liquidating people who are mentally and/or physically handicapped because they...are useless anyway while completely disregarding whether they actually really do suffer or not which then reminds me of a more adequate term I've already mentioned: Nazi eugenics, or even a more ancient and primitive version: Spartan eugenics.