Please help, please???? (batting eyelashes)

by outnfree 35 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  seven006

  <<<My secondary point was, how can we honestly attack someone's logic, or reasoning ability, unless we know all that they know?>>>

  Danny,

  I agree with everything you say except the above statement. Sometimes a persons logic is based on what the "don't know." Besides that, what fun would it be to play with Robert if we didn't attack his view of logic? After all, he believes in the talking snake, naked lady story.

  I know you are not trying to argue, I just didn't understand where you were coming from.

  Take care bud,

  Dave
• 

  DannyBear

  Dave,

  That is the frustration when attacking the arguments of You Know's and jw's in general, no matter how solid your facts, no matter the reams of evidence presented, they WILL NOT exercise thier own reasoning ability=logic.

  Enjoyed our conversation.

  Danny
• 

  Qjumper

  First up, I think euthenasia is immoral.

  If I were writing your paper, I would first clarify what that can mean. I see 2 ways:

  1. Is the PRACTICE of euthenasia immoral?
  ie, is it OK to euthenise someone or to try to get euthenised?
  Is it a bad thing when it happens?

  2. Should we (society) allow it to happen?
  ie, should it be legal?

  Second one first: Should it be legal?

  The reason I think this is a crucial distinction to make is that allowing it to happen leagally, whether you are sympathetic to euthenasia or not, opens up the very great possibility that the law will be abused and murder will become very easy to get away with. So although this aspect seems like purely a legal issue, I think it is really a moral/ethical question whether we should put our trust in any legal system to determine issues such as whether someone's wish to die is justifiable Eg, do they really have a terminal illness? Are they just depressed and suicidal? What about cases where other parties will benefit (financially, etc) from the death?

  It seems to me that legalising it would put a lot of pressure on doctors to make the right legal call, then go through with the euthanising, then defend any challenges to the legality of the act in court after the fact, under risk of being charged with murder. If you legally take away the risk of a murder charge, so that doctors found to be acting outside the law cannot be charged with murder and only charged with breaking euthenasia laws, then it becomes a very inviting avenue for people who wish to commit murder.

  Now the first: Is the PRACTICE of euthenasia immoral?

  I think it's not OK. Killing is bad, that's uncontroversial. Suicide is illegal in most places. I see euthenasia as a special category of suicide, where it's justification is that the pain and suffering of people with terminal or chronic illnesses (ie, they'll never feel better) have a right to die, or that someone else can make that decision for them, because it is the only way to end their suffering. Most suicides are commited by depressed people, who feel so much pain and suffering that they kill themselves. The reason we don't generally allow suicide is that the pain and suffering can be alleviated, the person can be helped out of the dead end (pun!) they've found themselves in. With the high quality of palliative care that is available in most countries these days, the same is true for all pain and suffering. There really is no need to suffer pain. Death is not the only option.

  Personally, I would be against any kind of suicide, even when it means eduring unbearable agony. But I don't think anyone has a right to impose this view on others. Explain why it is wrong, hope that others will be convinced to stay alive to experience the pain. After all, how many of us want to live simply to experience pain-free comfort and physical pleasure. There is more to life than that. If you could have an operation that would mean you could only laugh and never, ever cry, would you have it done? Not me. We are all spiritual creatures, even though it often seems some people are not. I get very upset when I hear euthenasia supporters say that we should have the right to die with dignity. I don't see it as dignified at all! Wanting to stay alive, despite the agony you are in, that's dignified to me.

  PS I don't believe there is an afterlife. I believe that when you die, that's it, everything ends. But even if you do believe there is something after death, there is no way of determining and knowing for sure, there is no reason to believe it. So the notion that euthanasia will end earthly life only and then allow you to move on to some other afterlife, doesn't hold any weight morally.

  PPS I live in Australia, where recently there was a widely publicised case of a cancer patient that wanted to die. It is illegal here. After a few weeks of media attention, she went through with it (she bought the lethal drugs overseas via the internet). About a week later it turns out she was not dying, her cancer was in remission and she was physically doing OK, and definitely not in unbearable pain. Many had claimed, before she died, that she was mentally unstable. And it turns out now that was true, the implication being that she was exploited by euthenasia campaigners in the most immoral way. It's also an ideal case study for supporting an anti-euthenasia position. The woman's name was Nancy Crick, she died in the state of Queensland in Australia this year (April or May?), if you want to look it up on the net.
• 

  JanH

  outnfree,

  Sorry for being late into this. Was a hard weekend The luxury of this is that others have already given you lots of material to work with, in particular Dave.

  Since the topic is logic, not religion, your paper must weigh pros and cons on the issue in a rational manner. Mere opinions and feelings on the subject are largly irrelevant.

  Some thoughts of my own: What is voluntarily euthanasia fundemantally about? It is about who owns a person's life. If a person does not own his or her own life, who does? The state? A ethical system that outlaws suicide necessarily argues that a person's life is not his or her own. If suicide under all circumstances is declared unethical, the question of assisted suicide is pretty moot.

  But it's not so simple. Even if we conclude that a person has the right to take his or her own life, what about e.g. a teenager experiencing a broken relationship for the first time. To the teenager, it feels like the end of the world. More mature people will know this is a passing phase, one that most of us goes through. Should the society then prevent suicide? The question is: Who has the capaicty to make decisions about his or her own life, and who has not? What should e.g. the rules of insanity be?

  If suicide is accepted, or at least if one declares that a person has a right to take his own life, then the question of assisted suicide makes it even more difficult. If a person is so sick s/he cannot take his or her own life, and we already already agree s/he has a right to do this, should we also permit others to do the technical and logistical help necessary to go through with the plan? One can argue that if it's the person's own life to give away, then the illegality of assisted suicide is a mere technicality, originally devised to protect the lives of those who wanted to keep it, and misused to prevent assisted suicide.

  While ethically muddy, I think it is important not to overstate the "what if" scenarios of permitting assisted suidice. Yes, there are borderline cases, and ethical debate usually centers on borderline examples. When opponents argue that if assisted suicide is permitted it opens a can of worms by letting healthcare and relatives get rid of unwanted individuals, they often use emotional arguments instead of dealing with the issue, namely capacity to make decisions as outlined above. Proponents, on the other hand, tend to overstate a person's right to his own life, especially if they at the same time oppose the right of a person to e.g. use drugs.

  - Jan
  --
  - "How do you write women so well?" - "I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability." (Jack Nicholson in "As Good as it Gets")
• 

  raven101

  Hey QJumper! I just have to jump in here and express my difference of opinion on the points you brought up, I have a pretty decided opinion about this subject, and the arguments you presented lured me irresistably. It'll be great for Outnfree with her paper too (I know where I'm coming for ideas next semester!)

  As far as continuing to disallow euthenasia because of risk of abuse-
  practically everything is a potentially disastrous tool for mayhem and murder if misused, cars may=reckless drivers, roadrage,carjackings,ddrunkdrivers. WE don't limit life (and shouldn't the right to choice of deathe) just because someone may misuse or abuse it.

  There are already crazy nurses and doctors who are caught (after many patients die mysteriously) these #'s would not increase significantly were euthanasia to be legalized. Opportunity isn't the lure here, they already have ample opportunity to kill patients if they are crazy enough to want to. As far as doctors being legally responsible for making the call-I don't see why on earth they would make any calls in that regard. People would do it for themselves.

  Evil family members? As far as evil family members go, basically the same argument holds true, and if a persons family is that evil, hey there are probly worse things they could do to them than kill them!(I'm not entirely joking here either)

  AS far as the trustworthyness of the legal system goes . . . yeah it can really suck, people get screwed and killed every day because of flaws, loopholes, assholes etc., but all in all its about as good as it's probly gonna get, its all we have, and for the most part it serves us pretty well.

  SUICIDE

  Now here I leave the realm of reasoning through logic, and am absolutely inspired to reason through emotion!!!!

  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SUICIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  I have a problem with the suffering which LEADS to suicide!!

  If we are talking about physical suffering that is really cut and dried

  you said:

  "Personally, I would be against any kind of suicide, even when it means eduring unbearable agony"

  OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE NEVER ENDURED UNBEARABLE AGONY!! (theres a reason it is so labeled)

  The "unbearable agony" endured by people dying any one of the many excruciating deaths can be SO unbearable that it is not even quenched with an absolute maximum dose of opiates.

  Can you imagine that?

  I don't even want to, I have never been in THAT much pain, however I have been in pain significant enough that if it were to continue unabated I could not die fast enough.

  That pain was childbirth . . . most people say that they blissfully forget the degree of that pain, but I made a specific effort to analyze it so I could describe it . . . imagine this . . .

  The area from above your naval to mid-thigh is compressed (mind you you feel the pain that would be subsequent from every fraction of this compression) to the size of a pea,

  the area from above your navel to mid-thigh is compressed to the size of a pea . . . and . . .

  a white hot blow torch is applied to it!!! I am not freaking kidding here, not one whit.

  If there had been no end in sight for that pain but death, though that death might be 5days, 5 mos., 5yrs, or50yrs away, I would find a way to end it as quickly as possible (time wouldn't be a blessing here it would be a curse)! All I could think of was getting away from the pain, I lay there and had one spontaneous and unbidden continuous thought, and that was of jumping through the second story plate glass window and running, just running away from the pain.

  I know what you are saying Qjumper when you say:

  "If you could have an operation that would mean you could only laugh and never, ever cry, would you have it done?"

  Because I have laughed, I have cried, I have endured physical as well as emotional agony and I know the value these have brought me . . . when I held my daughter in my arms I remember thinking . . .

  'Love, Love, unquenchable, unfathomable, unimpeachable . . . inexpressible Love . . . I would endure this pain every day to hold you in my arms.'

  And I would. I wouldn't however endure it ALL day, there would really be no choice there Q. That level of pain lasted only an hour or so before they administered the epidural . . . if I could have left my body I would have. I wouldn't have chosen DEATH, because there was an end in sight, and a reward I could only at that point imagine.

  But for some people the only possible cessation for unendurable agony is death. And they know best when to choose it. If they don't who does?

  If they don't who does?

  As far as suicide because of psychic suffering goes, my opinion is the same as above. Because of the power of the subject, the fact that it doesnt't really belong in this thread, and the intensity of my feelings regarding the subject I will not go further than that in this thread.
  But hey Q, I hear your heart . . and it sounds good,

  Raven101
• 

  outnfree

  WOW!!!

  First to newbie Qjumped G'day, mate! I am honored that you chose this thread to 'jump in' on our discussion board. [More below.]

  DannyBear,
  I think putting down a dog hit by a car is a classic example of context where the morality of euthanasia is concerned. Overall, you put things quite succinctly when you stated "Logic is an exercise of one's background, knowledge, experience, and individual mores."

  Dave
  AlanF is a babe!!!! (He'll get that, even if you don't!)

  Logic exposes both as immoral. To those who saw the writing of a cuss word on an airplane as immoral but the bombing of an enemy with napalm as justified, they have dismissed any logical thinking because of their own individual interpretation of morality. Again, I make the statement that in the realm of logical thinking the introduction of individual views of morality can discount all means of logic.

  DOES logic expose both as immoral? Or does it merely expose both arguments as illogical (incongruous? Is incongruity a fallacy? -- haven't gotten there yet!) That is, does either conclusion follow completely from the premises? Well, if the premise is that Society views cussing as immoral, then the conclusion that a plane with "fuck" on it is immoral is logical, as "fuck" is a cuss word. And, if the major premise is that "Dropping napalm from warplanes is morally justified" and the minor premise is "Vietnam War planes drop napalm," then the conclusion "VietNam war planes are morally justified [in dropping napalm]" is also logical. But it may be argued that morally the first premise is untrue. So the argument as presented would be logical, but unsound "because of their own personal interpretation of morality".

  You have broken down the three variations of context to voluntary, involuntary, nonvoluntary, euthanasia. That is not enough information. More needs to be determined to find a justifiable answer. In logical thinking the more information you can gather on a particular situation the better off you will be in finding a logical answer. Without a complete understanding of context as well as all the facts you can make the wrong decisions whether using logic or not in any given situation. Some times the only right answer is not to answer at all but to ask more questions.

  I agree with this completely! AND I thank you for the time you spent offering me (and DannyBear ) your thoughts. You know, you're STILL my favorite candidate for President!!!

  Good thing Farkel knows how to ask questions!!!!

  Farkel
  I never was much good at asking viewpoint questions as a dub, and I know that asking such questions of myself is exactly what the professor wanted me to do for this paper. So now I have LOT to ponder, thanks to you. I am convinced your response will help me to really narrow down my argument. Thanks for putting thought into this.
  

  I wouldn't have put any thought into this if you hadn't batted your eyelashes, you know!

  Ah! So if it were a persuasive paper I'd get an "A"????

  Qjumper,
  We are not supposed to explore the legal merits of our positions, but it was interesting to read your opinion on that anyway. Most of the information on the internet on the state of euthanasia in Holland is FULL of arguments that people are legally getting away with murder, especially of elderly, supposedly un-productive, people.

  While euthanasia is often thought of as 'a special category of suicide' I would argue that only voluntary active euthanasia, where one asks the doctor to end it all, or passive euthanasia, where one gives a 'do not resuscitate' order, to be 'suicide' at all. And, even then, if one is a naturalist and dislikes the artificial and intrusive means used to prolong life, is accepting a death that would have occurred naturally 5-10-25 years prior because one refuses to keep up with the times really suicide? Or could it be termed 'letting go'?

  JanH,

  It was a hard weekend, wasn't it?

  From my original post:

  So, please, what is your opinion? IS Euthanasia immoral? (Remembering that euthanasia is distinct from assisted suicide and there are both “passive” and “active” forms of euthanasia?)

  So you would argue that both active and passive euthanasia, in all their forms, is tantamount to suicide, but that suicide (and thus ALL euthanasia) is completely moral because each human being 'of sound mind' has the right to self-determination?

  ((((raven)))),

  Sorry you had such a hard time in childbirth. I had THREE natural -- ooh! ouch! ooh! ooh! OUCH!!!!!

  I have always been of the opinion that those in chronic, unbearable pain or losing control of their bodies should not feel guilty for committing suicide and that their families should be understanding in letting them go. HOWEVER (and it's a BIG however!), I do not think that it is right to ask a family member to assist with one's suicide. I think the psychic burden of this is too much to ask a family member (or close friend) to bear! Therefore, it is going to be up to the suffering one to devise a means to commit the suicide without involving any loved ones. This may mean contemplating suicide before one is absolutely at the point in a progressively worsening illness that quality of life is really, really so poor as to be pointless. Choosing that point in time carefully so as NOT to be a burden on those left behind has got to be enormously difficult.
  But, if one has decided to leave this life on one's own terms, it will require a great deal of courage to take the step BEFORE it's impossible to die without the assistance of another.

  Thanks, raven!

  WHAT GREAT RESPONSES, GUYS!!!!

  Love,

  outnfree

  When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift