aris2chat
Gold Member
- Feb 17, 2012
- 18,678
- 4,687
- 280
The problem is that the libtarded proaborts actually think that there is a difference between a "developing human being" and "a human being that is undergoing further development."
Intellectually honest people who have actually passed an 8th grade biology semester know that "a human being" in the zygote, embryo, fetal stages of their life is ALWAYS a "human being."
Proaborts require the new child to develop past the arbitrarily decided point where they can't be denied anymore. . . and then MAYBE they will admit it's a child.
So much for their professed standing on equal rights, huh.
I like to think we're all "undergoing further development". Some intelligent people can see there is a difference between a fertilized egg and an adult human. One displays the attributes that make humans different from other animals, rational thought, self-awareness, curiosity while the other is collection of DNA without senses or feelings. The egg cell that is little different from the fertilized egg of any other species, in fact only by sequencing it's DNA can the species be known, whereas an adult human can be typed immediately, you might even be able to ask it.
To say the rights of a single, senseless collection of DNA has rights equal to an adult human is intellectually dishonest.
Can a child born with anencephalia (born with no capacity for thought, feelings or awareness) be murdered?
Yes or no?
It will never has a normal life.
We put down our pets, but we can't terminate humans suffering?
It can usually be detected with prenatal testing. Parents should make that decision early enough. Blood test for genetic issues should be done before deciding to have children.
Dear aris2chat
1. If assisted suicide were legal, what conditions would need to be policed to prevent ABUSES of this legality to "cover up murder" by disguising it as "willful assisted suicide." If there is no way to tell the difference, then by keeping assisted suicide illegal, then murderers cannot use this so freely. Currently people DO get away with murder by covering it up as suicide. Giving them assisted suicide would enable even more such murders.
2. RE: difference between animals and humans
Not sure about animals, but humans carry "generational ills" that have a cause and a cure, where patterns repeat in future generations (ie patterns of cancer, alcoholic addiction, domestic abuse carry down both physically psychologically spiritually and possibly genetically). We have a conscience that either forgives or doesn't, and this forgiveness/unforgiveness factor in humans has been studied as correlating with illness and health, and whether people choose forgiveness therapy to "break through" past cycles of addiction, abuse and sickness related. People can go through spiritual healing which has been shown to either heal the root cause of sickness, alleviate the conditions, or in some cases, heal third parties (such as a mother praying to heal her generational issues, and the result was her daughter was cured of sickness), OR letting people go naturally.
There is no reason why someone couldn't naturally die without forcing it; there are cases of heartbreak and depression that end in death by the person "losing the will to live" and dying on their own without committing suicide or needing help to do so, and cases of comatose patients who let go and die on their own without being forced. I talked with a man who reached a consensus with his family to actively remove life support and let someone die, but they never had to; at the point they reached this agreement, the person let go on their own. So spiritually it is perfectly possible to allow people to let go and die without forcing this unnaturally.
So unless we exhaust ALL means of remediating the cause of suffering, it is unethical to kill someone
without offering this alternative first. What if someone believes leprosy or TB is incureable and the person who wants to die should be allowed to be removed from all sustenance in order to hasten death? It makes sense to offer the cure for leprosy or TB, see if that works and then ask that person if they really want to die or live.
3. So that's fine aris2chat: If you want to add that condition to the law, that the person must first be offered and undergo spiritual healing to effectively remove all possible causes of the suffering BEFORE they consent to die, that might still prevent abuse by people seeking to kill someone for convenience and calling it suicide.
Spiritual healing if they don't believe in a god?
Again imposing one's faith on others? We have freedom of faith for a good reason, that includes the freedom no to believe in what you are selling.
If suicide is acceptable in their religion, you should not be allowed to interfere in their final wishes. Death is unavoidable and if they want to step forward to avoid unnecessary pain to themselves or their family, thy should be allowed to. I've know people who arranged for medical suicide and why they took that path. I've made my own arrangements if and when I decide it is time. Why should I be forced to go beyond my pain threshold? Why should I depend on others to decide when food is injected into my stomach or when my diaper is changed, especially in a poorly funded over worked medical system that is impersonal? I made my arrangements more than twenty years ago and I'm still going. I know what I have to look forward to, thanks but no thanks.
You don't get to tell other what they can and cannot do to their body, you are not a slave master.