Arguments needed against voluntary euthanasia

[STT]

So? What is your point?

It means that you can commit suicide too.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

“Emotional” harm is very real and it can not be measured.

In certain cases it may very well be. But we are not talking about emotional scars and trauma in general. The problem still is: “should I be allowed to make decisions for myself, and should I be allowed to get help from outsiders, if I am unable to carry out my decision?”.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

It is post 33. Mark Langedijk said that his life was full of misery and suffering due to his battle with alcoholism

A doctor in the Netherlands has performed the euthanasia of an alcoholic who claimed his addiction had turned his life into a “cocktail” of misery.

In possibly the first documented case of euthanasia for alcoholism, Mark Langedijk, a 41-year-old father of two children, was given a lethal injection by his GP.

catholicherald.co.uk/news…ing-alcoholic/

I found this over on the World News forum.

Sorry, the link does not work for me, so I cannot comment about the details. But the point is that no one should be condemned to life, if they don’t want to live.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

It means that you can commit suicide too.

So what? I really don’t see what you are getting at. Yes we are all capable of sin and do sin and some people commit suicide and that is a sin too. The problem with suicide is that there is no time to repent after that sin because you are dead. With most sins we are free to repent after we commit them and try to change our lives so that we do not commit that sin again.

As for sin being irresistible, that is highly questionable. We have choice in the matter of sin. We often go over the rights and wrongs of the sin before we commit it.

In any case you have gone far afield from the original post. Voluntary euthanasia involves two people, the killer and the killed. I argue that voluntary euthanasia is not really “voluntary”. This was not an option until the present day. It is really sanctioned killing by the State and many doctors are or may soon be forced to perform it. It’s right up there with abortion on my list. It’s evil.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Sorry, the link does not work for me, so I cannot comment about the details. But the point is that no one should be condemned to life, if they don’t want to live.

You don’t need to open the link, the story is summarized in the post. The point is nobody should be **condemned to death **because they are an alcoholic.

One thing I just can’t understand about you atheists. You don’t value life, even though you claim this is all there is.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

This is an excellent example of why it shouldn’t be allowed. I really can’t imagine anyone being given permission do this for a problem such as alcoholism. That is a treatable condition – to a certain extent. A friend is an alcoholic and he simply doesn’t drink. Well, I say simply, but I don’t know how difficult it could be for him.

If there was a move to legalise it in Australia, I would support it. But…I would want guarantees that it wouldn’t be extended to cases such as this. I’m not exactly a fan of slippery slope arguments, but this is an example of where one needs to draw a very definite line in the sand. But then, of course, who makes the decision where that line is actually drawn.

That said, Vera has made the point that one should make personal decisions personally. If it comes to a point where I have to consider it myself (and I hope it never does – at least for a very long time yet), then I will be the one making the call. Naturally after discussing it with my family.

Well, that’s the problem Bradski. It IS a slippery slope, an extremely slippery slope, and once people vote for it, it will be put into action.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

You don’t need to open the link, the story is summarized in the post.

Without the original I cannot know how accurate the summary might have been. And as always… the devil is in the details.

The point is nobody should be **condemned to death **because they are an alcoholic.

Sure, but that has nothing to do with voluntary euthanasia. Apples and oranges.

One thing I just can’t understand about you atheists. You don’t value life, even though you claim this is all there is.

We value the quality of life.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Without the original I cannot know how accurate the summary might have been. And as always… the devil is in the details.

Sure, but that has nothing to do with voluntary euthanasia. Apples and oranges.

We value the quality of life.

So if it’s not to your liking- you just end it?

 

[ericc]

So if it’s not to your liking- you just end it?

Atheists believe we are soulless biological machines. Like dogs, cattle, horses but on a higher intellectual sentient level. There is no afterlife for them. So it is futile to argue that there is something to look forward to. Your time is better spent elsewhere. We believe there is a Divine Judge. They don’t but it is their choice. That is the beauty of freewill. So they don’t worry about any penalties/rewards in the afterlife. We do.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Atheists believe we are soulless biological machines. Like dogs, cattle, horses but on a higher intellectual sentient level. There is no afterlife for them. So it is futile to argue that there is something to look forward to. Your time is better spent elsewhere. We believe there is a Divine Judge. They don’t but it is their choice. That is the beauty of freewill. So they don’t worry about any penalties/rewards in the afterlife. We do.

I know that. I just want to hear the answer from their mouths.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

So if it’s not to your liking- you just end it?

If the bad overwhelms the good, and there is no hope in this life, yes, that is only reasonable behavior. This could be changed if you (in general) could present some credible evidence for a better afterlife. Unfortunately I have never seen such evidence. Not even the best and brightest apologists could present evidence (much less proof) for the existence of the Christian God, and could not present any explanation for the so-called “problem of evil”. Not in the last 2000+ years, and I an rather doubtful that you will succeed - ever. But who knows? I have been wrong before.

Atheists believe we are soulless biological machines. Like dogs, cattle, horses but on a higher intellectual sentient level. There is no afterlife for them. So it is futile to argue that there is something to look forward to. Your time is better spent elsewhere. We believe there is a Divine Judge. They don’t but it is their choice. That is the beauty of freewill. So they don’t worry about any penalties/rewards in the afterlife. We do.

Oh, it would NOT be futile, IF you could present evidence for your claims. I would love to have a conversation with some really knowledgeable apologists, who could substantiate their claims. I am not picky, they could be theologians, philosophers or members of the clergy. My only requirement would be that they must be intellectually honest. Do you know anyone?

 

[josh987654321]

Friends I need some help. I am trying to help one of my friend to develop some arguments against Peter Singer’ argument supporting voluntary euthanasia. Here I quote Singer’s arguments:

Why do we consider killing an innocent person to be wrong?

The answer is twofold.

First, killing someone is a violation of their autonomy. But in the case of voluntary euthanasia, a person’s autonomy is not taken away but supported.

Second, killing an innocent person deprives them of the good things in life they would have otherwise experienced. At this juncture, Singer makes an important qualification. He is not an “absolutist” about autonomy. If a healthy young person is lovesick or depressed, they may temporarily feel that life is not worth living. However, there is much reason to suspect these feelings will pass.

Any arguments to refute it?

The following I believe will help -

The Euthanasia Debate - Peter Singer vs Archbishop Anthony Fisher - youtube.com/watch?v=iC6WEFuhk6o

I thought Archbishop Anthony Fishers arguments were very good and I hope it proves helpful.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Josh

 

[carn]

Voluntary euthanasia. The thread is about voluntary euthanasia. Period.

Forget murder. Forget executions. Forget torture. Is it conceivably possible to discuss the subject itself without wandering off at a tangent?

I am irritated by your claim, that i did not stick to the topic as far as necessary.

You sort of asked:
“Well let’s try really hard to imagine that the rules would be enforced and see where the discussion goes on that basis.”
for opinion about how euthanasia then should be regulated. I answered:
“But ok, if one presumes the rules would be actually enforced and presumes God does not exist and presumes that human life has no value in itself but just due to its consequences (consequence here broadly; for example personally feeling happy would be in this sense a consequence of oneself being alive), then there is little reason not to ok euthanasia.”

Meaning given the conditions you suggested i should presume, i concluded that then euthansia is sort of ok to legalize.

The other info was just for completeness that under such conditions other controversial ethical topics would have to be so to say revisited; but that does not change the answer/conclusion about euthansia i have given.

 

[carn]

Irrefutable! On the slippery slope from morality to amorality there is no logical obstacle. Life is either infinitely precious or worthless…

Actually i realy meant, that if God does not exist and with somewhat reliable law enforcement agencies, yes, making euthanasia legal is rationally because then it is possible to navigate the slippery slope or make there a reliable legal structure for stopping the slipping with reasonable safety.

Reason is that if God does not exist and without anything else “supernatural” existing, the movement towards the undesired end of the slippery slope is fully caused by humans alone; so if one tries to devise a law that lets say is half way on the slippery slope, those attacking and weakening it to slip further along are just some humans with differing opinions.

So in devising such a law one has to enter a preemptive battle of wits in the framework of law, human nature and logic with those lawyers attacking the stopping law in the future. If one has a good enough idea “where” and how they are going to attack, one can devise the law for that and make it rather robust. That is in principle possible.

But if God exists, the slope might suddenly be a lot more slippery. Why?

Because then the steadiness of the stopping law also depends upon God’s opinion on the matter; if one so to say makes ones stand at a place of the slope (or in a way) that is pleasing to God one might even have improved chance of succeding.

But what people usually do before making such a slippery slope stopping law is implicitely or even more often explicitly declaring that God’s (name removed by moderator)ut regarding the matter is to be ignored.

The problem? God might react with a “Thy will be done”.

And then?

Then just as in the “no God scenario” one will try to devise a stable stop law, preemptively trying to guess and prevent the legal ploys the proponents of a further slide will try; just with a small caveat, who will also be among those propenents cleverly and deviously attempting any legal ploy, using any law and a patience lasting decades at least to see so to say the full slide into the abyss?

Yes, that one.

So in a world with God existing, entering the slippery slope with “God should have no say here” might put one into a literally God forsaken battle of wits and law against the Devil.

That means drastically reduced chances of success compared to the “no God scenario”; hence, the slope might be drastically more slippery.

(And actually, seeing how the world in the last 50 years went from a nearly worldwide ban on abortion and a declartion that also unborn children deserve some protection from secularized nations to now in France a ban on suggesting “maybe not having an abortion would be better”, the battle of wits was probably lost often)

 

[CHRISTINE77]

If the bad overwhelms the good, and there is no hope in this life, yes, that is only reasonable behavior. This could be changed if you (in general) could present some credible evidence for a better afterlife. Unfortunately I have never seen such evidence. Not even the best and brightest apologists could present evidence (much less proof) for the existence of the Christian God, and could not present any explanation for the so-called “problem of evil”. Not in the last 2000+ years, and I an rather doubtful that you will succeed - ever. But who knows? I have been wrong before.

Oh, it would NOT be futile, IF you could present evidence for your claims. I would love to have a conversation with some really knowledgeable apologists, who could substantiate their claims. I am not picky, they could be theologians, philosophers or members of the clergy. My only requirement would be that they must be intellectually honest. Do you know anyone?

I know of no one who could get through you at this stage in your life. You appear to be impenetrable and it seems to me that you really don’t want answers that don’t agree with your pessimism. But I hope some day you will open up to the possibility of God.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I know of no one who could get through you at this stage in your life. You appear to be impenetrable and it seems to me that you really don’t want answers that don’t agree with your pessimism. But I hope some day you will open up to the possibility of God.

I AM open to the possibility of God. Your sentence that “I don’t want answers that don’t agree with my pessimism” is extremely insulting. You keep assuming all sorts of things about me. One of them is being pessimistic. In another post you said that I seem to be like a petulant child. Would it be possible to drop your condescending and insulting manner? I am getting really tired of your attitude.

I am asking if there are any knowledgeable apologists, who can argue for their side in a convincing manner. All I ask for is “intellectual honesty”. Is that an impossible thing to hope for?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I AM open to the possibility of God. Your sentence that “I don’t want answers that don’t agree with my pessimism” is extremely insulting. You keep assuming all sorts of things about me. One of them is being pessimistic. In another post you said that I seem to be like a petulant child. Would it be possible to drop your condescending and insulting manner? I am getting really tired of your attitude.

I am asking if there are any knowledgeable apologists, who can argue for their side in a convincing manner. All I ask for is “intellectual honesty”. Is that an impossible thing to hope for?

I find you insulting too and VERY pessimistic. But I think I will end this conversation now because it clearly going nowhere.

 

[Bradski]

I am irritated by your claim, that i did not stick to the topic as far as necessary.

You sort of asked:
“Well let’s try really hard to imagine that the rules would be enforced and see where the discussion goes on that basis.”
for opinion about how euthanasia then should be regulated. I answered:
“But ok, if one presumes the rules would be actually enforced and presumes God does not exist and presumes that human life has no value in itself but just due to its consequences (consequence here broadly; for example personally feeling happy would be in this sense a consequence of oneself being alive), then there is little reason not to ok euthanasia.”

Meaning given the conditions you suggested i should presume, i concluded that then euthansia is sort of ok to legalize.

The other info was just for completeness that under such conditions other controversial ethical topics would have to be so to say revisited; but that does not change the answer/conclusion about euthansia i have given.

I don’t think that it’s helpful to suggest that if conditions are such that we could allow euthanasia then it would lead to, in your examples, exectutions and torture. They are topics for another thread and it muddies the water in regard to this discussion.

I think you have made some very valid points in your posts. And the slippery slope argument, as it specifically refers to euthanasia, definately needs to be discussed.

If I may, without myself taking the discussion into a different direction, compare it to abortion. I have zero problem with a woman having an abortion a few days after conception, but would not support an abortion a few days before completion of the pregnancy. Ask me where to draw the line and I have to admit that I cannot.

Likewise with euthanasia. I support someones right to end their own life under certain conditions. But there is no definitive dividing line between what should be allowed and what could be allowed.

Whether rules are rigidly enforced is a fair point. Whether one believes in God or not is up to the individual. But I don’t think anyone considers euthanasia because they believe that life has no value in itself. It may not have value at the time if you are suffering terribly with no hope of a cure, but in itself?

You’d have to be in a pretty desperate position to believe there was no value in life.

 

[tonyrey]

Actually i realy meant, that if God does not exist and with somewhat reliable law enforcement agencies, yes, making euthanasia legal is rationally because then it is possible to navigate the slippery slope or make there a reliable legal structure for stopping the slipping with reasonable safety.

Reason is that if God does not exist and without anything else “supernatural” existing, the movement towards the undesired end of the slippery slope is fully caused by humans alone; so if one tries to devise a law that lets say is half way on the slippery slope, those attacking and weakening it to slip further along are just some humans with differing opinions.

So in devising such a law one has to enter a preemptive battle of wits in the framework of law, human nature and logic with those lawyers attacking the stopping law in the future. If one has a good enough idea “where” and how they are going to attack, one can devise the law for that and make it rather robust. That is in principle possible.

But if God exists, the slope might suddenly be a lot more slippery. Why?

Because then the steadiness of the stopping law also depends upon God’s opinion on the matter; if one so to say makes ones stand at a place of the slope (or in a way) that is pleasing to God one might even have improved chance of succeding.

But what people usually do before making such a slippery slope stopping law is implicitely or even more often explicitly declaring that God’s (name removed by moderator)ut regarding the matter is to be ignored.

The problem? God might react with a “Thy will be done”.

And then?

Then just as in the “no God scenario” one will try to devise a stable stop law, preemptively trying to guess and prevent the legal ploys the proponents of a further slide will try; just with a small caveat, who will also be among those propenents cleverly and deviously attempting any legal ploy, using any law and a patience lasting decades at least to see so to say the full slide into the abyss?

Yes, that one.

So in a world with God existing, entering the slippery slope with “God should have no say here” might put one into a literally God forsaken battle of wits and law against the Devil.

That means drastically reduced chances of success compared to the “no God scenario”; hence, the slope might be drastically more slippery.

(And actually, seeing how the world in the last 50 years went from a nearly worldwide ban on abortion and a declartion that also unborn children deserve some protection from secularized nations to now in France a ban on suggesting “maybe not having an abortion would be better”, the battle of wits was probably lost often)

In a Godless universe there is no rational basis for the belief that life is sacred for the simple reason that nothing is intrinsically sacred! It amounts to a human convention that can be ignored with impunity. In a universe created by God the only justification for killing a person, born or unborn, is in self-defence or the defence of others. Allowing a person to die is also wrong unless it is the lesser evil but that problem is obviously not always easy to solve - as in the case of a mother and her unborn baby.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think that it’s helpful to suggest that if conditions are such that we could allow euthanasia then it would lead to, in your examples, exectutions and torture. They are topics for another thread and it muddies the water in regard to this discussion.

I think you have made some very valid points in your posts. And the slippery slope argument, as it specifically refers to euthanasia, definately needs to be discussed.

If I may, without myself taking the discussion into a different direction, compare it to abortion. I have zero problem with a woman having an abortion a few days after conception, but would not support an abortion a few days before completion of the pregnancy. Ask me where to draw the line and I have to admit that I cannot.

Likewise with euthanasia. I support someones right to end their own life under certain conditions. But there is no definitive dividing line between what should be allowed and what could be allowed.

Whether rules are rigidly enforced is a fair point. Whether one believes in God or not is up to the individual. But I don’t think anyone considers euthanasia because they believe that lifef
You’d have to be in a pretty desperate position to believe there was no value in life.

In a Godless universe, Brad, aren’t values imposed by us rather than intrinsic attributes? If we exist by chance there seems no objective reason for regarding anything as sacred or even valuable because there is no reason why reason itself exists! It may have survival value but there again survival value is simply a human concept which is arbitrary in presupposing life is worth living!