Condemning the Right to Die

[KenRU]

Many denominations of Christianity condemn the right to die when terminally ill. I've often wondered why anyone who holds that position could condone the suffering that results, and how that position could possibly ever be seen as a good/moral/right position to hold.

To illustrate my point and for the purposes of debate, assume the following:

The patient is terminally ill.

The patient is in pain.

The patient is of sound mind.

The patient no longer wishes to suffer, and wishes to end his/her own life.

For the sake of clarity, please use the standard and common definition for all words.


Does it just boil down to, Thou Shall Not Kill? End of conversation?

How does one justify the suffering a terminally ill patient will endure - perhaps even for years - when denying that right? It never made sense to me.



For debate:
If you are opposed to the Right To Die, please make your argument:

1) Why this is the right/good position to hold.
2) Why this position shouldn't be seen as callous, cruel and/or selfish.
3) Why it should be the law of the land.
4) Why the opposing side is wrong.

If you support the Right To Die, please make your argument:

1) Why this is the right/good position to hold.
2) Why this position shouldn't be seen as murder and just plain wrong.
3) Why it should be the law of the land.
4) Why the other side is wrong.

[rikuoamero]

Why do we not have that choice or right?

Do you believe in God ? If you dont, then, nothing I said will convince you.

Do you believe in God ?

The problem with this response is, imagine your beliefs are the law of the land, as in, people do not get to make the choice. Now, what do we do with us pesky atheists? Could I or KenRU as an atheist be allowed to make the choice, will you and the rest of society say no to us?

[KenRU]

Why do we not have that choice or right?

Do you believe in God ? If you dont, then, nothing I said will convince you.

Do you believe in God ?

No. And, as has been pointed out to you above, now what?

For what it's worth, you may want to revise your opinion on what atheists do and do not know. I spent 20+ years as a practicing Catholic. I am familiar with the concepts of god and sin. I find that most atheists understand religion better than most theists understand atheism.


Now, my turn. If your whole position rests on religion and what you think your god wants, do you then wish to enforce your religiously oriented morals on someone who does not share your belief system?

If that is not your position, what is?

-all the best

[JerryMyers]

I don't agree about it not being in my vocab - I don't believe in Zeus, but I still recognise the word, still have a meaning for the word Zeus in my mind.

Recognising and knowing the meaning of the word is very different from believing in the word. You may know the word Zeus and know Zeus was one of the Greek Gods BUT do you actually believe in Zeus for Zeus to have any spiritual impact on you ?

So, then this concept of sin that you yourself have, that 'we' all made a choice - that doesn't apply to me because I say I'm not a believer in it?

How can it apply to you when you dont believe in a God ??

By definition, sin is committed when you do something against the Commands of God. We said Adam and Eve sin because they ate the fruit which God commanded them not to. If God had not commanded them as such, then, they eating the fruit would not be a sin.

When I said sin is a choice, it means you are fully aware of Gods Command against doing something BUT you still do it " that was your choice " you knew you should not do it, but temptations got the better of you, so you do it, in which case you would have sin. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, knowing very well God forbid it, it was their choice to go against Gods Command. Its not like they had no choice at all.

Okay cool. So non-believers in your God did not make a choice regarding sin. Is that a statement you can agree with?

Not really. Everyone, irrespective whether you are a believer or not, have a choice. The only difference is that if you are a believer of God (irrespective of which faith) when you do something against Gods Command, its called sin. If you dont believe in a God, its not a sin to you because God is out of your equation. To make that clearer, say you and a believer (of God) break into someone house and steal some belongings. To you, thats not a sin but it was just a crime but to the believer, its not only a crime but also a sin as God commanded against stealing. Nevertheless, the decision to break-in that house was a choice you and the believer made.

The OP, while mentioning Christianity at first, has questions that are open to everybody, regardless of belief.
Also, I can make points on subjects that even people of religious belief can agree with. For example, I can say "Theft is wrong because it deprives a person of their belongings": both religious and non-religious people could agree with that.

Of course, statements like Theft is wrong because it deprives a person of their belongings" would be agreed by both religious and non-religious people because it does not contradict any religious beliefs. So, why should anyone, whether he or she believe in God or not, disagree with statements like that ?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 103 by JerryMyers]

You're contradicting yourself.

Not really. Everyone, irrespective whether you are a believer or not, have a choice.

vs

How can it apply to you when you dont believe in a God ??

Nevertheless, the decision to break-in that house was a choice you and the believer made.

So what choice did I make?

When I said sin is a choice, it means you are fully aware of Gods Command against doing something BUT you still do it " that was your choice

This is where things get dicey, don't you think? According to some people, simply being aware that there is this religion called Christianity which has adherents claiming that there are ten commandments given by God would be enough to count as I, the unbeliever, 'being aware of God's Command'.
Of course, I take the opposite road, and state that no, I am not aware of any God's command, given that in my eyes, no God has given such a command.

Anyway, your responses do not detail anything that I did, as an individual. So you are unable to say with any justification that I am, in fact, a sinner. Of course, I could quote Paul or any other Bible passages that state that non-believers are sinners, or just humans in general, being the supposed descendants of Adam and Eve, having inherited Original Sin.

Of course, statements like Theft is wrong because it deprives a person of their belongings" would be agreed by both religious and non-religious people because it does not contradict any religious beliefs. So, why should anyone, whether he or she believe in God or not, disagree with statements like that ?

I was pointing out, like KenRU above, that your statements on responding to the OP are coated entirely within your religious belief. The OP, in my eyes, was looking for someone to support an opposition to the right to die without having to have their answer depend entirely on their religion.

Consider if OP had asked whether one supports theft or not. My answer as shown above would be agreed to entirely by both religious and non-religious folk. You could have said it, or I. Now imagine if someone opposed to theft had given, as the entirety of their reason for why they are opposed to it, the Eighth Commandment. Why should members of society who are not Christian or Jewish agree with that person's reason for having theft be illegal?

[JerryMyers]

[Replying to post 103 by JerryMyers]

You're contradicting yourself.

Not really. Everyone, irrespective whether you are a believer or not, have a choice.

vs

How can it apply to you when you dont believe in a God ??

The quotes above are related but not contradictory as they are under different topics.

The first was a general statement about choice and I said everyone, whether you believe in a God or not, has a choice, unless, you believe those who do not believe in a God, have no choice in whatever they do.

The second was about sin which does not apply to you because you dont believe in a God as sin is a defiant of Gods Commands. In other words, whatever you do which believers of God see as sin, are not sin to you.

Nevertheless, the decision to break-in that house was a choice you and the believer made.

So what choice did I make?

To break-in or not to break-in is a choice of 2 options. Choosing option 1 (to break-in) is, of course, a choice you made over option 2 (not to break-in).

When I said sin is a choice, it means you are fully aware of Gods Command against doing something BUT you still do it " that was your choice

This is where things get dicey, don't you think? According to some people, simply being aware that there is this religion called Christianity which has adherents claiming that there are ten commandments given by God would be enough to count as I, the unbeliever, 'being aware of God's Command'.
Of course, I take the opposite road, and state that no, I am not aware of any God's command, given that in my eyes, no God has given such a command.

Maybe I should not had said you as that might suggest I was referring to you when I was actually saying you as a general reference to everyone. So, allow me to rephrase that so that you have a better understanding " When I said sin is a choice, it means when someone is fully aware of Gods Command against doing something BUT he or she still do it " that was his or her choice.

someone is fully aware of Gods Command would mean someone who believe in God and pledge to follow His Commands.

Anyway, your responses do not detail anything that I did, as an individual. So you are unable to say with any justification that I am, in fact, a sinner. Of course, I could quote Paul or any other Bible passages that state that non-believers are sinners, or just humans in general, being the supposed descendants of Adam and Eve, having inherited Original Sin.

I am sorry if I have not detailed out anything. Anyway, to Paul, the non-believers (of God) are sinners because he believed in a God. To the non-believers who do not believe in a God, they do not consider themselves as sinners " they can be wrong-doers, criminals, anything BUT sinners.

Of course, statements like Theft is wrong because it deprives a person of their belongings" would be agreed by both religious and non-religious people because it does not contradict any religious beliefs. So, why should anyone, whether he or she believe in God or not, disagree with statements like that ?

I was pointing out, like KenRU above, that your statements on responding to the OP are coated entirely within your religious belief. The OP, in my eyes, was looking for someone to support an opposition to the right to die without having to have their answer depend entirely on their religion.

Well, I am sure the OP was fully aware that subjects like Condemning the right to die would attract responses from both believers of God and non-believers of God, dont you think so??

Consider if OP had asked whether one supports theft or not. My answer as shown above would be agreed to entirely by both religious and non-religious folk. You could have said it, or I. Now imagine if someone opposed to theft had given, as the entirety of their reason for why they are opposed to it, the Eighth Commandment. Why should members of society who are not Christian or Jewish agree with that person's reason for having theft be illegal?

The reality of the matter is, you dont need any religious beliefs to know theft, raping, etc are wrong. You certainly dont need to agree or disagree with someones reason to know theft is wrong. You just need to have the right moral values to know whats right and whats wrong.

[JerryMyers]

Why do we not have that choice or right?

Do you believe in God ? If you dont, then, nothing I said will convince you.

Do you believe in God ?

The problem with this response is, imagine your beliefs are the law of the land, as in, people do not get to make the choice. Now, what do we do with us pesky atheists? Could I or KenRU as an atheist be allowed to make the choice, will you and the rest of society say no to us?

Why should there be a problem with this response ? And what kind of choice are you referring to that pesky atheists (to borrow your term) like yourself and KenRU have to make ? Going by your example the law of the land, are you referring the choice as a choice to have a say in the development of the law or the choice to adhere to or not to adhere to the law of the land ??

[JerryMyers]

Now, my turn. If your whole position rests on religion and what you think your god wants, do you then wish to enforce your religiously oriented morals on someone who does not share your belief system?

If that is not your position, what is?

-all the best

Do any of my responses indicate that I wished to enforce my religiously oriented morals on someone who does not share my belief system ?? Fact is I am just responding from the religious oriented morals perspective just as you are responding from an atheist oriented morals perspective.

Can I ask you the same question " do you wish to enforce your atheist oriented morals on someone who does not share your belief system ? If that is not your position, what is ?

[KenRU]

Now, my turn. If your whole position rests on religion and what you think your god wants, do you then wish to enforce your religiously oriented morals on someone who does not share your belief system?

If that is not your position, what is?

-all the best

Do any of my responses indicate that I wished to enforce my religiously oriented morals on someone who does not share my belief system ??

What is the title of this thread? "Condemning the Right To Die". I gathered from your post above that you do. Was I wrong?

Fact is I am just responding from the religious oriented morals perspective just as you are responding from an atheist oriented morals perspective.

No, the fact is I support the right for individuals to decide for themselves. That is not an atheistic stance.

Can I ask you the same question " do you wish to enforce your atheist oriented morals on someone who does not share your belief system ?

How does allowing someone the right to choose for themselves force anything upon anyone?

If that is not your position, what is ?

My position is quite clear. I support the right for an in-pain, terminal patient to end their suffering. It should be their choice. No one else's. Do you support this position, and if not, as the OP asks, please answer the following (as asked in the OP):

For debate:
If you are opposed to the Right To Die, please make your argument:

1) Why this is the right/good position to hold.
2) Why this position shouldn't be seen as callous, cruel and/or selfish.
3) Why it should be the law of the land.
4) Why the opposing side is wrong.

-all the best

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 96 by KenRU]

Either the stories of terminal patients in pain who lose the will live are true or they arent. Youve said both. That can be confusing.

Uh--some of those stories may be true, and some may not be true. All clear?

But, all of these examples are lies, right?

I don't know. I'd need to investigate any cases of people who desire to die to see what's really going on with them.

I had a family member who fit these criteria.

Please share what the circumstances of your family member were/are. I've noticed that the cases of people who presumably wish to die are very often made known by family members. I'm not sure if that's good or bad, but I'm wondering why the actual sufferers are so silent. Maybe they cannot communicate their plight and need family members to do so.

Oh, and for what its worth, I reject your label of euthanasia enthusiast. I am not enthusiastic about euthanasia.

That's interesting. I'm very enthusiastic about my rejection of terminating the dying and the sick and seeking better ways for such people to live and live well. It would be fantastic to see the efforts wasted on euthanasia redirected into better living for the elderly and the disabled. Good homes--good jobs--good social lives--I'd really love to see that made real for everybody.

Otherwise, perhaps it is just as fair then to label you a sufferer enthusiast? Or, a pain monger?

I've noticed that you seem to equate life with pain and suffering. Are you in pain or suffering in some way and wish to end that pain by ending your life? If so, I'd strongly recommend you seek help.

Move along.

Nah. I'm going to stay and irritate the heck out of the enemies of the disabled. It's my way of fighting back.

I have had family members who lived in hospice and who have been in a situation where they wanted to end their life due to suffering.

Please share an example. You mentioned a great aunt. What are the details of her story?

Im very glad to hear that you and your family were able to give your father the love and dignity he deserved. Unfortunately, not everyone gets to end their life in such a manner.

Right, and that's why the push for euthanasia is such a threat. I think that my family's efforts to comfort our Dad when he was dying made the difference for him living as long as he did. Euthanasia works against those kinds of efforts by denying that there's hope for those who are very ill.

Who said anything about giving up or wanting someone to die?

If you describe death as a right, then I must assume that you want people to have that right.

So, because you have a fear of what may get out of hand, you therefore would deny a terminal and in pain patient the right to end their suffering. I dont see the compassion here.

It depends on what you mean by "end their suffering." I definitely support the right of a person to refuse medical treatment as I've said before. However, to actively terminate that person's life I see as murder and as wrong. To refuse to kill anybody is not a lack of compassion. I think doing so would be wrong, and I have a right to refuse to do what I think is wrong.

Is this another baseless assertion? Please cite your source or evidence.

The Nazi T4 program for starters. You need to know about the history of euthanasia.

Once again, who said anything about this being a good thing?

That's another interesting admission. I think my position is a great thing!

I just am willing to listen to the medical professionals, and the patients wishes.

Do you know of any medical professionals, say doctors or nurses associations, that support euthanasia?

Im suspicious that you are a masochist and wish to bring as much pain into the world as possible...

Really? Now do you base that suspicion on the way I treated my Dad or the way I treated my friend (the elderly woman) who was dying with cancer?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 105 by JerryMyers]

To break-in or not to break-in is a choice of 2 options. Choosing option 1 (to break-in) is, of course, a choice you made over option 2 (not to break-in).

...I've never broken in anywhere...? Please elaborate. What or where did I break into and what justification do you have for making this claim (or should I say accusation?)

In other words, whatever you do which believers of God see as sin, are not sin to you.

So I can do certain things that would usually be labelled as 'sin' in your eyes, if only I were a believer of God? So for example, in your eyes, if I steal a car, I have only broken the law, but not committed a sin?
Or would I still be committing sins, just not to my own eyes?

Maybe I should not had said you as that might suggest I was referring to you when I was actually saying you as a general reference to everyone.

Precisely my point. When we try to actually make your religion apply to everyone, as in individuals, when we break down the religious claims...that is when it is revealed it is making spurious claims of people. Earlier, you said I had 'broken into' (whether meant literally or as a metaphor, I don't know). Thing is...you don't know that. You have no idea whether or not I have 'broken into'.

Anyway, to Paul, the non-believers (of God) are sinners because he believed in a God. To the non-believers who do not believe in a God, they do not consider themselves as sinners " they can be wrong-doers, criminals, anything BUT sinners.

Given the massive amount of influence Paul had over Christianity, why are you seemingly disregarding him here?