Right to Die - Appeal Rejected

Turtwig

Can I just get a clarification here?

Bala, you support the idea or principle of the euthanasia. You just doesn't think a working a system can ever be practically implemented? Or do you think euthanasia, the idea, is unethical, period?

Nodin

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

And?

Just answer the question......

MagicMarker

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

There is only ONE moral view. There are NOT two. Something is either right or it is wrong. What is right and what is wrong is objective fact and NOT open to subjective opinion or debate.

Really, so murder is wrong except during war? So murder is wrong but also right sometimes. Seems kind of subjective to me.

P_1

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

There is only ONE moral view. There are NOT two. Something is either right or it is wrong. What is right and what is wrong is objective fact and NOT open to subjective opinion or debate.

What a ridiculous suggestion. Morals are one of the most subjective of subjective views that there are.

Balaclava1991

Nodin wrote: »

Because - amazing thought this - they'd ask the relative?

If it is legal to kill in the circumstances of the Fleming case there is no protection for vulnerable people who are being railroaded by family members who want to grab their property and no protection for someone who wants to live but is murdered by relative who makes up a sob story about wanting to spare them suffering.

Worse when it becomes acceptable to kill the ill and the sick there is a slippery slope.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Why bother trying to find new ways of healing, prolonging life or making the sick comfortable when you can kill them?

If killing was permitted in the Fleming case then a coach and four is driven through civilized values.

Balaclava1991

P_1 wrote: »

What a ridiculous suggestion. Morals are one of the most subjective of subjective views that there are.

Rubbish. What is right and what is wrong is true in all times and all places. There is no debate.

Balaclava1991

MagicMarker wrote: »

Really, so murder is wrong except during war? So murder is wrong but also right sometimes. Seems kind of subjective to me.

War is NOT murder.

Nodin

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

If it is legal to kill in the circumstances of the Fleming case there is no protection for vulnerable people who are being railroaded by family members who want to grab their property and no protection for someone who wants to live but is murdered by relative who makes up a sob story about wanting to spare them suffering..

Why are you stating this crap again when I've already pointed out an obvious safe guard? The relatives permission is required.

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Worse when it becomes acceptable to kill the ill and the sick there is a slippery slope..

.....this really, really gets boring.

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Why bother trying to find new ways of healing, prolonging life or making the sick comfortable when you can kill them?..

So you don't have to help anyone die?

You still haven't explained what gives you the right to prolong somebodys suffering.

You still haven't explained why this isn't a matter of control over ones own body.

Nodin

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

War is NOT murder.

Generally, one would say it's organised mass murder. Nessecary betimes alas.

Balaclava1991

Nodin wrote: »

Generally, one would say it's organised mass murder. Nessecary betimes alas.

Give me a break! You can't tell the difference between war and murder? Enough said. I am through debating with you if you are utterly ignorant of basic morality.

Nodin

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Give me a break! You can't tell the difference between war and murder? Enough said. I am through debating with you if you cannot understand basic moral concepts.

You still haven't explained what gives you the right to prolong somebodys suffering.

You still haven't explained why this isn't a matter of control over ones own body.

Balaclava1991

Nodin wrote: »

You still haven't explained what gives you the right to prolong somebodys suffering.

You still haven't explained why this isn't a matter of control over ones own body.

The mind boggles that someone cannot understand why it is wrong and therefore evil to kill another person who is not an immediate violent threat to the life of someone else.

Noone has the right to kill a helpless person who is in pain and dying even if they request to be killed.

That person is not a threat to the lives of anyone else and cannot be killed.

Period. Debate over. End of.

Allowing Marie Fleming to be killed opens the floodgates to allow anyone to claiming they were performing a mercy killing if their real intention was monetary gain or some other selfishness to hasten the death of a burdensome relative.

Your moral duty as a human being is to assist and comfort people who are dying not to kill them.

oscarBravo

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Rubbish. What is right and what is wrong is true in all times and all places. There is no debate.

Slavery? Homosexuality?

MagicMarker

oscarBravo wrote: »

Slavery?

That was objectively deemed moral, but then we changed our minds.

Balaclava1991

oscarBravo wrote: »

Slavery? Homosexuality?

Slavery was always wrong and always will be wrong.

Discriminating against homosexuals is wrong and always will be wrong.

It was wrong 1,000 years ago, it is wrong if it happens today and it will always be wrong.

End of.

Culture, tradition and time and place do not excuse evil in any circumstances.

The same goes for killing a person who is not a threat to the life of another person.

Killing another person is permissible in war when enemy soldiers are killed, to stop a criminal from killing another person or to terminate a pregnancy to save the life of the mother and an in NO other circumstances.

If you kill in another circumstances you are guilty of murder.

If morality is subjective then anything is permissible.

MagicMarker

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Killing another person is permissible in war when enemy soldiers are killed, to stop a criminal from killing another person or to terminate a pregnancy to save the life of the mother and an in NO other circumstances.

So it's murder to turn off a life support machine, and we should never ever do it?

oscarBravo

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Slavery was always wrong and always will be wrong.

Discriminating against homosexuals is wrong and always will be wrong.

It was wrong 1,000 years ago, it is wrong if it happens today and it will always be wrong.

End of.

So morals always were, still are, and always will be defined by your current personal definition of what's right and wrong.

Gotcha.

Balaclava1991

oscarBravo wrote: »

So morals always were, still are, and always will be defined by your current personal definition of what's right and wrong.

Gotcha.

Are you seriously trying to say right and wrong are a matter of feeling or opinion?

Let's have no laws or rules and let people do what they like and make it up any rule they want.

Morals are based on objective rights and wrongs.

Balaclava1991

MagicMarker wrote: »

So it's murder to turn off a life support machine, and we should never ever do it?

Life support machine's are turned off when there is brain death i.e. a lack of brain activity. A person is dead when their brain is dead and clearly all that is keeping them alive is the life support machine. It is clearly not murder to turn off a life support machine when brain death has occurred.

Malcolm.

Jernal wrote: »

Here's what pops up.
http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/watersnip.jpg

Quite fetching . . . in a Bear type way

swampgas

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Noone has the right to kill a helpless person who is in pain and dying even if they request to be killed.

IMO the right thing to do is to acquiesce to the dying person and ease them out of their pain.

That person is not a threat to the lives of anyone else and cannot be killed.

Period. Debate over. End of.

Cannot be killed? Ever? Sounds like you're scared someone will turn your machine off. Does death scare you that much?

MagicMarker

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Life support machine's are turned off when there is brain death i.e. a lack of brain activity. A person is dead when their brain is dead and clearly all that is keeping them alive is the life support machine. It is clearly not murder to turn off a life support machine when brain death has occurred.

A person is dead when their heart stops, that's why we say "brain dead", rather than just dead. According to your previous criteria, turning off a life support machine is wrong. You just seem to be coming up with more and more reasons to kill people, you monster.

oscarBravo

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to say right and wrong are a matter of feeling or opinion?

I'm saying that your personal opinions don't define what's right and wrong. Morals change with the zeitgeist; if you had said a couple of centuries ago that slavery was morally wrong, you'd have been laughed at. If you had said a few decades ago that homosexuality was morally acceptable, you'd have been laughed at.

Now, you're stating as an incontrovertible moral FACT that it's morally wrong to allow a person who's suffering in a way that you can only hope you never experience to die with dignity, and you don't have the humility to accept even the possibility that you might be wrong.

I hope for your sake you are never in a position where the only thing you want in the world is for someone to be able to put you out of your misery, but I suspect it's the only thing that could change your mind.

Balaclava1991

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm saying that your personal opinions don't define what's right and wrong. Morals change with the zeitgeist; if you had said a couple of centuries ago that slavery was morally wrong, you'd have been laughed at. If you had said a few decades ago that homosexuality was morally acceptable, you'd have been laughed at.

So what? Slavery is wrong because a person is forced to work against their will. Discriminating against homosexuals is wrong because they are born homosexual and their sex lives are their own business.

If you apply your logic we have no right to fight right ring extremists who believe in enslaving blacks and killing gays.

Now, you're stating as an incontrovertible moral FACT that it's morally wrong to allow a person who's suffering in a way that you can only hope you never experience to die with dignity, and you don't have the humility to accept even the possibility that you might be wrong.

I am not wrong because killing a defenseless human being is always wrong.
Unless that person is a direct threat to the life of another I have no right to kill them and if I did that would be murder.

You must have no moral compass whatsoever if you do not share that objective moral fact.

I hope for your sake you are never in a position where the only thing you want in the world is for someone to be able to put you out of your misery, but I suspect it's the only thing that could change your mind.

It is evil to expect someone else to commit murder to put me out of my suffering.

If I am diagnosed with a terminal illness and I decide I do not want to live I will kill myself before putting someone in that position.

Marie Fleming knew she was going to die years before she became unable to kill herself. She should have taken her own life then.

It is evil to expect someone else to kill you because you want to die.

Balaclava1991

MagicMarker wrote: »

A person is dead when their heart stops, that's why we say "brain dead", rather than just dead. According to your previous criteria, turning off a life support machine is wrong. You just seem to be coming up with more and more reasons to kill people, you monster.

The brain is the person. When the brain dies the person is dead. Not when the heart stops. Ask a doctor and they will tell you that basic biological fact.

Malcolm.

Put a bullet in them. It would save a fortune in health care and taxes

oscarBravo

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

So what? Slavery is wrong because a person is forced to work against their will. Discriminating against homosexuals is wrong because they are born homosexual and their sex lives are their own business.

Forcing people who will spend the rest of their lives to live in unbearable pain to suck it up and deal with it is wrong because... well, I would have hoped it was self-evident.

If you apply your logic we have no right to fight right ring extremists who believe in enslaving blacks and killing gays.

Slavery isn't wrong because blacks are not fully human. Homosexuality is wrong because the bible says so.

All you're doing is spouting your personal morality at me as if it was a universal law, which is, frankly, breathtakingly arrogant.

I am not wrong because killing a defenseless human being is always wrong.

...unless they're wearing the wrong colour uniform. Then it's absolutely acceptable.

Unless that person is a direct threat to the life of another I have no right to kill them and if I did that would be murder.

...or they're a soldier for a country you happen to be at war with right now.

You must have no moral compass whatsoever if you do not share that objective moral fact.

No arrogance here. No sirree bob.

It is evil to expect someone else to commit murder to put me out of my suffering.

But it's noble to tell someone who's in unbearable pain to suck it up and deal with it.

If I am diagnosed with a terminal illness and I decide I do not want to live I will kill myself before putting someone in that position.

What gives you the right to kill yourself?

Marie Fleming knew she was going to die years before she became unable to kill herself. She should have taken her own life then.

I know I'm going to die. Should I kill myself now in case I'm unable to do so should the time come that I'd rather be dead?

It is evil to expect someone else to kill you because you want to die.

Evil. There's a quaint term.

Quatermain

I quite recently had a very close, very well-loved relative make me promise them that if they ever ended up crippled and helpless, that I would pull the plug on them. I would do so gladly, because I love this person dearly. It would not be murder. It would be mercy.

This person is currently the glowing soul of intelligence and kindness that has guided my life. I will be damned if I let them waste away, wailing and shuddering as a thin shadow of themselves. To my mind, releasing someone else from pain and humiliation in a quick, humane fashion is in no way anything of which to be ashamed.

mikom

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

If I am diagnosed with a terminal illness and I decide I do not want to live I will kill myself before putting someone in that position.

Suicide......... Which up until 1993 was a crime in this country.
So I presume in '92 you would have decided against ending your life due to the law.


You are either a drone or a troll.

Balaclava1991

oscarBravo wrote: »

Forcing people who will spend the rest of their lives to live in unbearable pain to suck it up and deal with it is wrong because... well, I would have hoped it was self-evident.

You can't defend it. You simply can't.

Slavery isn't wrong because blacks are not fully human. Homosexuality is wrong because the bible says so.

If slavery or homophobia are not objectively wrong then if you opposed to slavery and homophobia you have just your subjective opinion.

If everything is subjective then there is NO morality.

All you're doing is spouting your personal morality at me as if it was a universal law, which is, frankly, breathtakingly arrogant.

Killing people who are not a threat to the life of other people is murder.

Evil. There's a quaint term.

Objective evil does not exist? Are you serious?

If there was no objective evil there would be no law and everything would be permissible.

So if someone like Ted Bundy decides its perfectly OK to kidnap, rape and murder young women who are you or I to stop him then?

There are real objective standards or there is no civilization.

Balaclava1991

mikom wrote: »

Suicide......... Which up until 1993 was a crime in this country.
So I presume in '92 you would have decided against ending your life due to the law.


You are either a drone or a troll.

Suicide is not wrong. That is objective fact irrespective of law, time or place. Killing someone else is who is not a direct threat to another person is always wrong and that is an objective fact in all times and places.

The mind boggles that someone in the 21st century could have reach the age of reason and does not know that.

Balaclava1991

Quatermain wrote: »

I quite recently had a very close, very well-loved relative make me promise them that if they ever ended up crippled and helpless, that I would pull the plug on them. I would do so gladly, because I love this person dearly. It would not be murder. It would be mercy.

It doesn't matter what you believe.

Murder is murder is murder.

This person is currently the glowing soul of intelligence and kindness that has guided my life. I will be damned if I let them waste away, wailing and shuddering as a thin shadow of themselves. To my mind, releasing someone else from pain and humiliation in a quick, humane fashion is in no way anything of which to be ashamed.

If you carry through your threat to kill I will personally make sure you go to prison for the rest of your life.

You will fully deserve it too.

Nodin

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

.........

Your moral duty as a human being is to assist and comfort people who are dying not to kill them.

So you deny them the comfort of death and prolong their suffering.

Because that's the right thing to do.

oscarBravo

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

You can't defend it. You simply can't.

I am. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but it would be nice if you'd stop trying to act like I'm a lesser being because I disagree with you.

If slavery or homophobia are not objectively wrong then if you opposed to slavery and homophobia you have just your subjective opinion.

If everything is subjective then there is NO morality.

I haven't claimed that everything is subjective, so do us all a favour and leave that poor straw man alone.

I've pointed out that a few short years ago what you consider morally acceptable was condemned with the same vehemence that you are now condemning the idea of assisted suicide. You may even find that the word "evil" was - in fact, still is - liberally applied to people's sexuality.

You don't seem to be able to contemplate the idea that objective moralilty will ever differ in any way from what you personally believe right now to be right and wrong. Everyone in the past who felt differently was wrong; everyone who feels differently now is wrong; everyone in the future who will ever feel differently is wrong.

Seriously: how can you not see how un-frickin-believably arrogant that sounds?

Killing people who are not a threat to the life of other people is murder.

So you can't kill an enemy soldier in a war if that soldier isn't an immediate threat to someone? It's murder unless the soldier you kill is just about to kill someone else?

Objective evil does not exist? Are you serious?

You're the sole arbiter of what is and isn't evil? Are you serious?

If there was no objective evil there would be no law and everything would be permissible.

So if someone like Ted Bundy decides its perfectly OK to kidnap, rape and murder young women who are you or I to stop him then?

There are real objective standards or there is no civilization.

Who decides what those objective standards are? You? The Pope? A government subcommittee?

Balaclava1991

Nodin wrote: »

So you deny them the comfort of death and prolong their suffering.

Because that's the right thing to do.

Murder is not a comfort.

Murder is not the right thing to do.

It is a heinous crime.

Nodin

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Murder is not a comfort.

Murder is not the right thing to do.

It is a heinous crime.

The same old rhetoric whinged out again and again. You fail to address the substantive issue of suffering in these cases.

Balaclava1991

oscarBravo wrote: »

I am. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but it would be nice if you'd stop trying to act like I'm a lesser being because I disagree with you. I haven't claimed that everything is subjective, so do us all a favour and leave that poor straw man alone.

You are claiming there is no objective right and wrong and you are trying to justify cold blooded murder. What reaction would expect? You expect to be treated nicely for advocating a position that is utterly revolting and vomit inducing?

I've pointed out that a few short years ago what you consider morally acceptable was condemned with the same vehemence that you are now condemning the idea of assisted suicide. You may even find that the word "evil" was - in fact, still is - liberally applied to people's sexuality.

A Nazi in the 1940s would have that only a few short years ago Jews were protected by the law and then they could be gassed to death and burned to ashes.

If you have no objective standards then ANYTHING is permitted.

You don't seem to be able to contemplate the idea that objective moralilty will ever differ in any way from what you personally believe right now to be right and wrong. Everyone in the past who felt differently was wrong; everyone who feels differently now is wrong; everyone in the future who will ever feel differently is wrong.

So do you think jihadists have the right to cut of hands, heads, whip people, bomb and shoot and terrorize? How can you condemn them since they sincerely believe in what they are doing?

You condemn them because every right thinking human being knows that terrorizing, mutilating and murdering people is wrong.

Objectively wrong.

So you can't kill an enemy soldier in a war if that soldier isn't an immediate threat to someone? It's murder unless the soldier you kill is just about to kill someone else?

I never said that.
I said it is permissible in war to kill any enemy soldier who is still fighting before the formal end of hostilities.
Outside of war unless a person is a direct threat you cannot kill them.

You're the sole arbiter of what is and isn't evil?

I believe in OBJECTIVE values. Not SUBJECTIVE values.
OBJECTIVE values exist independently of any individual human being.
I don't think you understand what OBJECTIVE and SUBJECTIVE mean.

Who decides what those objective standards are? You? The Pope? A government subcommittee?

OBJECTIVE morality exists in its own right independently of any individual or government.

Right and wrong exist in all times and all places.

Nodin

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Seriously: how can you not see how un-frickin-believably arrogant that sounds? .

O, the lolz......

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

I believe in OBJECTIVE values. Not SUBJECTIVE values.
OBJECTIVE values exist independently of any individual human being.
............................
OBJECTIVE morality exists in its own right independently of any individual or government.

Grand then so. Where is it written down?

oscarBravo

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

You are claiming there is no objective right and wrong...

And you're claiming that everything you believe to be right is objectively right, and everything you believe to be wrong is objectively wrong. How did you find out these objective truths?

swampgas

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

If you have no objective standards then ANYTHING is permitted.

Just because morality is subjective doesn't mean we don't have shared ideas about what should and shouldn't be allowed in society.

I believe in OBJECTIVE values. Not SUBJECTIVE values.
OBJECTIVE values exist independently of any individual human being.
I don't think you understand what OBJECTIVE and SUBJECTIVE mean.
[...]
OBJECTIVE morality exists in its own right independently of any individual or government.

Thing is, everybody who claims to believe in objective morality seems to have a slightly different version to everyone else. Almost like it depends on their own individual interpretation of right and wrong. There's a word for that concept.

Balaclava1991

oscarBravo wrote: »

And you're claiming that everything you believe to be right is objectively right, and everything you believe to be wrong is objectively wrong. How did you find out these objective truths?

Everybody instinctively knows what is right and wrong.

You are born with an innate knowledge of right and wrong.

Evil people reject this innate knowledge and commit evil.

Nodin

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Everybody instinctively knows what is right and wrong.

You are born with an innate knowledge of right and wrong.

Evil people reject this innate knowledge and commit evil.

So the Aztecs, Mayans and our ancestors who carried out human sacrifice knew they were doing the right thing. Why did they stop? Should we start again?

oscarBravo

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Everybody instinctively knows what is right and wrong.

You are born with an innate knowledge of right and wrong.

Evil people reject this innate knowledge and commit evil.

So every slave owner knew they were doing wrong and did it anyway because they were evil?

Everyone who ever condemned homosexuality did so because they were evil?

Balaclava1991

swampgas wrote: »

Just because morality is subjective doesn't mean we don't have shared ideas about what should and shouldn't be allowed in society.

So we can have a shared society in which some people think killing defenseless people is right and other people think killing is wrong?

That's utterly illogical.

Thing is, everybody who claims to believe in objective morality seems to have a slightly different version to everyone else.

There is only ONE objective morality.

We all know what is right and we all know what is wrong.

Immorality dressed up as some supposed morality is still wrong no matter what anyone says otherwise.

Almost like it depends on their own individual interpretation of right and wrong. There's a word for that concept.

There is no individual interpretation of right and wrong.

Objective morality already exists.

Balaclava1991

oscarBravo wrote: »

So every slave owner knew they were doing wrong and did it anyway because they were evil?

Everyone who ever condemned homosexuality did so because they were evil?

Yes.

You don't think they were evil?

How do you defend yourself from evil doers and how do you teach your kids right and wrong?

There have to be OBJECTIVE moral values or there is no morality.

Balaclava1991

Nodin wrote: »

So the Aztecs, Mayans and our ancestors who carried out human sacrifice knew they were doing the right thing. Why did they stop? Should we start again?

The human sacrifices of the Aztecs and Mayans were evil.

Their entire society was barbarian savagery.

Nodin

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Yes.

You don't think they were evil?

How do you defend yourself from evil doers and how do you teach your kids right and wrong?

There have to be OBJECTIVE moral values or there is no morality.

So the Aztecs, Mayans and our ancestors who carried out human sacrifice for centuries knew they were doing the right thing or were they evil? Why did they stop? Should we start again?

Nodin

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

The human sacrifices of the Aztecs and Mayans were evil.

Their entire society was barbarian savagery.

Pathetic, simplistic, nonsense. You haven't a bogs notion tbh.

Balaclava1991

Nodin wrote: »

Pathetic, simplistic, nonsense. You haven't a bogs notion tbh.

The Aztecs and the Mayans performed human sacrifice.

You don't think human sacrifice is wrong?

If someone in Ireland was performing human sacrifice that would be wrong wouldn't it?

Nodin

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

The Aztecs and the Mayans performed human sacrifice.

You don't think human sacrifice is wrong?.

The question relates to those carrying it out in a different time period.

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

So-called mercy killing is human sacrifice as far as I can see.

Do please explain.