What the primary motive behind euthanasia promoters?

  • Thread starter Thread starter abcdefg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

abcdefg

Guest
There was an euthanasia promotion program on the goverment-run(not US of course) news channel. In it the promoter mentioned “mercy”, “burden to patient’s family”, “valueless human beings” and “a waste of social resource” as reasons. but I guess monetary gain for euthanasia executioners(I refused to call them medics) is a reason as well so it’s included in the poll. another reason from the liberals I know is “showing off they’re liberals”. they oppose everthing conservatives said for no good reason, though they usually do it with some covers.

I voted “monetary gain for euthanasia executioners”

If you know better motives just reply.
 
It is both economical,and also the fact that humans are being looked at as commodities and if their so-called “use” is up they look at them as an economical burden.Some are confused and feel they are being merciful:(
 
Terror.

Terror they will end up useless. Terror they will be stuck forever, suffering in some hospital at the end of their life. Terror of losing control of their lives and being helpless with no dignity that they understand. Terror of having bowels and brains that don’t work. Terror of slowly watching themselves waste away and become nothing. Terror that all the money will go to pay for them, so their still living spouse will be left with no money for basic needs.

Terror.
 
Although the term ‘valueless human beings’ is an oxymoron 😉 I did vote for that one. There were several I could have chosen. But what I see among the prodeath crowd, and this does include a number of folks in the medical profession, is that they see a very disabled or terminal patient as ‘taking up a bed and resources.’ Their life no longer has value to society. I don’t think they are being merciful and really there isn’t any money in it. In fact if you think about it, the doctor loses a patient when he/she dies and thus is no longer reimbursed for treatment. But I think working in medicine has a hardening effect on a lot of people.

Lisa N
 
Interesting choices. I think, as in all things, the people have mixed motives. The one they probably most will talk about is mercy, but I’m sure that it’s not as simple as that.

Probably these folks have a strong ethic of social engineering. They view it as the need to promote what they see as the ‘common good’ over the life of one individual. They probably think that if someone is suffering, and a burden on everyone around them, they might as well speed things up, since suffering is so distressing and a long drawn out death is unpleasant and expensive.

Our priest talks a lot about the value and virtue of our suffering, and how we should offer it up. Suffering is something we should expect in life and it has great spiritual value. This is a concept that promoters of euthanasia reject completely. It is also out of step with our current pleasure oriented, materialistic culture that exalts the young and the rich, and looks with pity and contempt on the old and less fortunate.
 
I think it’s a control issue. They want to feel that they have total control of their lives, including how and when they die. Sometimes they want control over the deaths of others as well.
 
Paraphilia / necrophilia. Read some of the accounts of serial killers and then read excerpts from Felos’s book.
 
…of those that I have met, it’s usually a mis-guided understanding of quality of life…

Pope John Paul II gave a very great example of the value of life, and the benefit for those around you who had the priviledge of being a witness to the suffering…

…and can appreciate the “true” value of life, during the good times and especially the bad…
 
**They consider human beings the same as animals. They believe in showing human beings the same mercy they show animals. That is, if you dog or cat is suffering, you bring it to the vet to be euthanized. **

So you see, the problem is not that they don’t show mercy - they do.

The problem is that they do not place a high value on human life.
 
I don’t know if I agree completely with the “valueless human beings” sentiment, but that seemed the closest answer. I think that the real issue is a denial of the value of human life. All of the other listed items may seem the primary motive for some euthanasia proponents, but all stem from one root cause, the denial of the value of human life. This is nothing new - in fact, it has been one of Satan’s most successful lies throughout all of human history. This same lie has led to countless murders, wars, and genocides. The movement for eutnanasia and/or assisted suicide in the Western world is merely its latest manifestation (and not even a new one - Nazi Germany was killing the disabled and terminally ill years before they started rounding up Jews).

Throughout history, we see that whenever a society completely turns away from God, it’s only a matter of time before the mass killing begins. In North America and Western Europe, it began with abortion in the 1960s and 70s, and the push for euthanasia is simply its natural continuation.
 
Simple.

They declare that the ones being euthanized do not have human rights because they don’t look like the rest of us or act like the rest of us.

It is bigotry plain and simple.

And then they dare to claim they are being “compassionate” when in reality they are cold hearted liBRRRals.
 
OK, my Mom died a few years ago…I had to get her switched to a different doctor’s office, after her doctor of record said to me, & this is a quote, I remember it word for word: “Mommy is old, Mommy is sick, Mommy is worthless. Don’t you think that it would be easier for both of us, if Mommy just died?”
The words kill/euthanasia were never used…But that was clearly the intent.
Oh, yeah, I reported him. But he had all ready realized his mistake, & was claiming that I was a bigot, & that I had called him by racial slurs.
He is still practicing.
Mom lived another 3 years,& except for the last few weeks, she was in her own home. I wonder, every time I hear about an elderly or handicapped person who has died under his “care”…
Yes, I voted:( “valueless human beings”…
 
40.png
Zooey:
OK, my Mom died a few years ago…I had to get her switched to a different doctor’s office, after her doctor of record said to me, & this is a quote, I remember it word for word: “Mommy is old, Mommy is sick, Mommy is worthless. Don’t you think that it would be easier for both of us, if Mommy just died?”
The words kill/euthanasia were never used…But that was clearly the intent.
Oh, yeah, I reported him. But he had all ready realized his mistake, & was claiming that I was a bigot, & that I had called him by racial slurs.
He is still practicing.
Mom lived another 3 years,& except for the last few weeks, she was in her own home. I wonder, every time I hear about an elderly or handicapped person who has died under his “care”…
Yes, I voted:( “valueless human beings”…
Click to expand...
(long slow whistle).

Oh my.

I can’t even find words.
 
I voted “valueless human beings” (and I also think this term is an oxymoron). The euthanasia gang are the ones who try to put a dollar value on human life. Save this one, and kill that one, because this one’s life is worth more, in dollars and cents of potential earnings, for example. The “unproductive” ones are deemed not worthy of life.

I even recall a politician (some time ago; I don’t remember his name) who had this sick, twisted vision of a futuristic society where all people over a certain age would be euthanized. I wonder if he still feels that way, given that he’s probably over his self-imposed “age limit” now. :rolleyes:
 
I voted waste of resources. Although I do not support euthanasia for any reason, I truly believe that by the time I am retired, should I be physically disabled, the United States will not permit me to live out my life to its natural end, and will spin it as preserving “personal dignity.”

Many people don’t understand that there is nothing more personally dignified than submitting to and trusting in God’s plan for us. The late Pope John Paul II (the Great) demonstrated so beautifully how this should be done.
 
40.png
Pug:
Terror. … Terror.
Click to expand...
Hammer, meet Nail. Nail, Hammer.

I voted mercy, but I do so with mixed feelings, because I feel putting it that way is giving into their flawed definition of “mercy”. Mercy killing is for animals in which there is no salvific value in suffering. In fact, If there were the option, I would have voted “failure to find any value in human suffering.” That is the source of this flawed view of mercy, and also the source of said terror.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top