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.
Condemning the Right to Die
Moderator: Moderators
Condemning the Right to Die
Post #1"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg
Re: Condemning the Right to Die
Post #121I apologize for my part in letting the conversation degenerate as it did.Jagella wrote: Seeing that this discussion is getting a bit too personal and filled with invective ...
-all the best
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg
Re: Condemning the Right to Die
Post #122[Replying to post 121 by KenRU]
There's no need to apologize. As far as I'm concerned you can say whatever you want to me. If that's how you feel, then say it.
There's no need to apologize. As far as I'm concerned you can say whatever you want to me. If that's how you feel, then say it.
Re: Condemning the Right to Die
Post #123Well, I do try to be civil, and feel that I didn't quite live up to my own standards in our exchange.Jagella wrote: [Replying to post 121 by KenRU]
There's no need to apologize. As far as I'm concerned you can say whatever you want to me. If that's how you feel, then say it.
We can disagree, and still remain cordial. No reason not to be.
-all the best
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg
Condemning the Right to Die
Post #124I would love to hear from other points of view on this subject. Both for and against.
The poll seems pretty one sided at this time: 17-yes, 0-no.
There have been a couple of dissenters posting opinions, but none voted no. Odd.
-all the best
The poll seems pretty one sided at this time: 17-yes, 0-no.
There have been a couple of dissenters posting opinions, but none voted no. Odd.
-all the best
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg
