Morality and Ethics of the Termination of Life.

[☭proletarian☭]

My issue with rape is this.. I morally and ethically have a hard time telling a rape victim she has to keep the child.. What if we were talking about a 13 year old girl??

What if we are?

How does the victimization of party a by party b make party a's actions against party c, which you said are otherwise unacceptable, suddenly acceptable? How can two wrongs- thing you yourself said were wrong- suddenly make a right?

As for suicide?? No. In most cases we should help the person live.. But there are cases in which suicide is preferable.. Cancer in it's final stages can be very very painful.. Why would we even want to keep someone alive at that point? There is no cure, nothing medicine can do.. They are just going to live in pain until they die.. We kill animals to free then from pain and discomfort, why not our loved ones?

Why would it normally be unacceptable to allow them to kill themselves? if they can decide physical pain is unbearable, why can they not decide for other reasons that they no longer with to continue their existence? What is

your reasoning?

Capital punishment??

Well.. In an ideal world, our prison system would find ways to make prisoners productive in society and earn their keep.. Like the chain gangs of old.. I am sure some of the lower risk prisoners can be used on the farm or something.. Take away some of those jobs from the illegal immagrants.. With todays technology, there is no reason that prisoners can't be used for many of those unwanted jobs..

For the terrorist or murderer??

I guess my thought there is, if we are going to kill them? Why can't we use them then?? Give them cancer and try to cure them then.. Use them as medical lab rats so to speak.. At least then the information they provide will be something.. Or maybe give them that option.. Death or Lab rat..

What crimes are heinous enough, under what circumstances, for one to lose any rights or protections so that performing such experiments upon them becomes acceptable in your mind?

I don't know.. I am kinda on the fence on some of this..

I understand. Sometimes it's really hard to say why you feel a certain way.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Gosh Proletarian?? Where you come up with these??

The morality and ethics of death or termination of life??

Abortionis a tough issue, while I agree that abortion is wrong, I do believe there are times where it is required.. Like in the case of saving the mother's life.. So, abortion would be eithical in the case of preventing the mothers death..

Is it safe to assume you also mean you find it moral in these cases?


Why does the manner in which a human life is created determine whether it is moral in your mind to end that life? do you intend to state that a child produced by rape is 'less human' or somehow has less rights or value than a child created through willful and desired intercourse?

You seem to be confused over the ethics andf morality. Contrary to the etymological roots of the term, 'ethics' is used to generally mean widely or socially acceptable, whereas moral is a personal thing.

Do you also believe it to be morally acceptable to help someone end their life without their being in such a state?

As for capital punishment?? While some may call it sociatal defence or whatever.. Bottom line is it is revenge.. Something religion gave us.. I don't believe society has the right to kill someone.. Murder is murder no matter if it is a gun or a needle..

How do you feel about the rest of society being forced to provide for a criminal? Are there any instances where a person surrenders their right to life through their actions?

Yes.. I find it moral as well..

My issue with rape is this.. I morally and ethically have a hard time telling a rape victim she has to keep the child.. What if we were talking about a 13 year old girl??

No one's telling a rape victim that she has to keep the child, simply that she can't kill him. I don't see that being victimized conveys the right to victimize someone else. As for the 13-year-old girl, would that really be the lesson you would want to teach her? I understand your feelings where this is concerned, but honestly, you can't erase what happened to her or make it less traumatic, and how do you know an abortion isn't just going to ADD trauma to what happened?

I have to say, if we were talking about my daughter when she was 13 - all other things being equal - I would try to help her see allowing that beautiful, innocent child to live as bringing something good out of something bad, rather than misplacing the rapist's guilt onto someone who's never done anyone any harm.

As for suicide?? No. In most cases we should help the person live.. But there are cases in which suicide is preferable.. Cancer in it's final stages can be very very painful.. Why would we even want to keep someone alive at that point? There is no cure, nothing medicine can do.. They are just going to live in pain until they die.. We kill animals to free then from pain and discomfort, why not our loved ones?

Possibly because our loved ones aren't ignorant animals, with no way of understanding what's happening to them or bringing anything good out of hardships.

And you're not talking about suicide, which would be them killing themselves. You're talking about homicide, which is someone else killing them, and a whole 'nother issue entirely.

Capital punishment??

Well.. In an ideal world, our prison system would find ways to make prisoners productive in society and earn their keep.. Like the chain gangs of old.. I am sure some of the lower risk prisoners can be used on the farm or something.. Take away some of those jobs from the illegal immagrants.. With todays technology, there is no reason that prisoners can't be used for many of those unwanted jobs..

In an ideal world, there wouldn't be criminals. How's about you talk about THIS world now?

Inmates are already used in chain gangs. What's that got to do with capital punishment, which isn't used on people who can be trusted outside the prison gates to work?

For the terrorist or murderer??

I guess my thought there is, if we are going to kill them? Why can't we use them then?? Give them cancer and try to cure them then.. Use them as medical lab rats so to speak.. At least then the information they provide will be something.. Or maybe give them that option.. Death or Lab rat..

I don't know.. I am kinda on the fence on some of this..

Damn, you'd have fit right in in the Third Reich. "They're undesirables, let's just treat them like animals." The answer - and it scares me to have to actually explain it - is that we aspire to be better than they are, and treating human beings like tools or a means to an end removes our moral authority to be outraged when they do it.

 

[JD_2B]

Okay, this is somewhat broad and I think that's what's needed. Looking at how people view homicide- willful and otherwise- and also matters pertaining to other animals, there seems to be great confusion over the underlying question: when is it acceptable to end life and when is it not?

Let me start by saying that this is clearly a troll post brought over from the law and justice system thread about abortion, where pro has relentlessly flamed and trolled the thread.

Also, I am as pro life for the living, as I am pro right to die for the dying, and pro choice for the pregnant. I find no happiness in thinking about death, but it is a natural thing to happen, and it must be allowed. Nobody has an entitlement to live, but we can and must humble ourselves and allow people to both live AND die mercifully, and peacefully.

Prior to birth- a biological "life support" system is neither a right nor an entitlement.

When the person orders it for themselves- in life support situations, by means of a living will, or testimony by a friend or family member which would indicate that the person would not want to be kept on life support or would not want it for an extensive period of time, whatever the case may be.

When a person who is hooked up to life support systems is using space, energy, medical assistance, etc, that is not funded by themselves or their families, for a certain period of time (subject to whatever the injury might be, it could be longer or shorter, depending on the situation) then with the advice of either two doctors, or the approval of the necessary family member, then the person can be disconnected from those life support systems, and allowed to die, and if a judge's order is necessary for this to happen, then that helps immensely. I had to sign a form with my sister, authorizing the medical professionals to pull the plug on my mom when she went brain dead after several years of chemotherapy, followed by a severe three week stint in the hospital, which ended her waking life. May she rest peacefully.. =(

In the case of a crime being committed which is considered deadly in nature, or someone trespassing on your property, your home, your car, your business, or is assaulting your body in a penetrative way, then either a person being attacked, who is in direct danger, or a bystander has the right to kill the intruder/ attacker, with certain exceptions to killing law enforcement officers, etc, doing their duties within good faith and reason.

As an obvious proponent for vigilante justice, I am adamantly against the death penalty. I say state sanctioned murder is just stooping to the level of the criminal mind, through an act of anger and wrath, and the death penalty is an unnecessary means of removing a dangerous person from society.

I am also against health care professionals making their own subjective decisions on who should be hooked up to life support and who shouldn't, and I do not approve of people being disconnected without at least two doctors signatures and a court order.

I also think that anyone who has a pool or a treehouse, etc, and their child dies or is seriously injured as a result of a near drowning, fall, etc, then the parents should be forced to remove the treehouse, or fence in the pool, etc, the same way parents with excessively dirty homes can have their neglected children removed due to a health and safety threat, if they do not clean the place up. They should also take certain classes on child safety and welfare within a certain time frame.

Oh and foster caregivers, or licensed child care workers, should be subjected to FAR more training than they are required to take, currently, to avoid the damages to children that happen on what seems to be a constant basis these days. One in five children is neglected or abused in these situations, which is unsatisfactory to me. Nail Technicians have like a thousand hours of training, which is a far cry from the 30 or so hours that child care and foster parents are required to complete. Ick.

 

[dilloduck]

Okay, this is somewhat broad and I think that's what's needed. Looking at how people view homicide- willful and otherwise- and also matters pertaining to other animals, there seems to be great confusion over the underlying question: when is it acceptable to end life and when is it not?

Let me start by saying that this is clearly a troll post brought over from the law and justice system thread about abortion, where pro has relentlessly flamed and trolled the thread.

Also, I am as pro life for the living, as I am pro right to die for the dying, and pro choice for the pregnant. I find no happiness in thinking about death, but it is a natural thing to happen, and it must be allowed. Nobody has an entitlement to live, but we can and must humble ourselves and allow people to both live AND die mercifully, and peacefully.

Prior to birth- a biological "life support" system is neither a right nor an entitlement.

When the person orders it for themselves- in life support situations, by means of a living will, or testimony by a friend or family member which would indicate that the person would not want to be kept on life support or would not want it for an extensive period of time, whatever the case may be.

When a person who is hooked up to life support systems is using space, energy, medical assistance, etc, that is not funded by themselves or their families, for a certain period of time (subject to whatever the injury might be, it could be longer or shorter, depending on the situation) then with the advice of either two doctors, or the approval of the necessary family member, then the person can be disconnected from those life support systems, and allowed to die, and if a judge's order is necessary for this to happen, then that helps immensely. I had to sign a form with my sister, authorizing the medical professionals to pull the plug on my mom when she went brain dead after several years of chemotherapy, followed by a severe three week stint in the hospital, which ended her waking life. May she rest peacefully.. =(

In the case of a crime being committed which is considered deadly in nature, or someone trespassing on your property, your home, your car, your business, or is assaulting your body in a penetrative way, then either a person being attacked, who is in direct danger, or a bystander has the right to kill the intruder/ attacker, with certain exceptions to killing law enforcement officers, etc, doing their duties within good faith and reason.

As an obvious proponent for vigilante justice, I am adamantly against the death penalty. I say state sanctioned murder is just stooping to the level of the criminal mind, through an act of anger and wrath, and the death penalty is an unnecessary means of removing a dangerous person from society.

I am also against health care professionals making their own subjective decisions on who should be hooked up to life support and who shouldn't, and I do not approve of people being disconnected without at least two doctors signatures and a court order.

I also think that anyone who has a pool or a treehouse, etc, and their child dies or is seriously injured as a result of a near drowning, fall, etc, then the parents should be forced to remove the treehouse, or fence in the pool, etc, the same way parents with excessively dirty homes can have their neglected children removed due to a health and safety threat, if they do not clean the place up. They should also take certain classes on child safety and welfare within a certain time frame.

Oh and foster caregivers, or licensed child care workers, should be subjected to FAR more training than they are required to take, currently, to avoid the damages to children that happen on what seems to be a constant basis these days. One in five children is neglected or abused in these situations, which is unsatisfactory to me. Nail Technicians have like a thousand hours of training, which is a far cry from the 30 or so hours that child care and foster parents are required to complete. Ick.

stop woman---you're making me tired

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

question: when is it acceptable to end life and when is it not?

Unborn children who are inconvenient - unacceptable
Annoying spouses with large life insurance policies - unacceptable
Mugger/rapist attacking you - acceptable

Principles...
How is an unborn child (whatever that is) in one situation less in another? Are yiou blaming the unborn child?

I know it is often argued that if one opposes abortion on the grounds of respect for the sanctity of life, that means that one must also oppose war and/or capital punishment. I don't consider that a respect for human life automatically translates into wanting to preserve all lives at all costs.

Of course. You would murder an unborn child (isn't that how it's phrased?), because of the situation it was created in.

Not all lives have equal claims on us in all respects.

In the case of capital punishment, as I said on another thread, I consider it to be societal self-defense. In addition, I consider that my respect for life requires nothing less than the forfeiture of the murderer's life, either through life imprisonment with no chance of parole or through death in the most heinous of ca....

Life is life. Murder is murder. Killing is killing.

Some of us are less morally smug than others...so we have less need of the intellectual gymnastics you need.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Also, I am as pro life for the living

as I am pro right to die for the dying

And as for a party ending the life of another party?

,

and pro choice for the pregnant

This contradicts part one of your statement.

Nobody has an entitlement to live,

So you reject the concept that any living thing can or does possess any right to that life and its protection? Again, this stands in contrast to your first assertion.

Prior to birth- a biological "life support" system is neither a right nor an entitlement.

The entire planet is a life support system for the lifeforms which reside upon and within it. Your analogy has no merit or value.

When a person who is hooked up to life support systems is using space, energy, medical assistance, etc, that is not funded by themselves or their families, for a certain period of time (subject to whatever the injury might be, it could be longer or shorter, depending on the situation) then with the advice of either two doctors, or the approval of the necessary family member, then the person can be disconnected from those life support systems, and allowed to die, and if a judge's order is necessary for this to happen, then that helps immensely.

What is the reasoning? How much time should be granted? I find it curious that you expression concern for the person's state or chances of recovery, but only of the burden they become.

As an obvious proponent for vigilante justice,

Another way of saying a proponent of no justice at all,. as vigilantism by its very nature is without law, defense, or true interest in justice. How is such lawlessness and beneficial? For what reason do you support the lynch mob in its murderous spree?

I am adamantly against the death penalty

Your sentence makes no sense. The first half and the second do not go together logically to form any coherent thought. Clarify.

. I say state sanctioned murder

An oxymoron.

I am also against health care professionals making their own subjective decisions on who should be hooked up to life support and who shouldn't,

That's not what you implied above where you appealed to the go-ahead of anyone with 'M.D.' after their name while providing no real meaningful way of determining whether such a call is warranted.

and I do not approve of people being disconnected without at least two doctors signatures and a court order.

Again, you appeal only to the 'authorities' and provide no real criteria by which to determine whether the act is justified. Why do you entrust the State to decide for you and offer no way of deciding for yourself whether an act is justified? Why the worship of the State so?

I also think that anyone who has a pool or a treehouse, etc, and their child dies or is seriously injured as a result of a near drowning, fall, etc, then the parents should be forced to remove the treehouse, or fence in the pool, etc, the same way parents with excessively dirty homes can have their neglected children removed due to a health and safety threat, if they do not clean the place up. They should also take certain classes on child safety and welfare within a certain time frame.

What justice is served by robbing someone whose child has died of their property?

Since Earth is one giant life-support system, and the universe itself by extension, as it provides for the numerous forms of life what the lifeforms cannot provide themselves, and since you have argued that the inability to exist outside the environment for which your physiology and current physical state are developed, would it be acceptable for someone or something to end your life, since you fail to meet your own ever-changin criteria for 'personhood'- or do you recant your earlier assertions?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cecile, can you offer a reason why you consider suicide immoral, or is it simply an emotional/moral abhorrance in your mind? Do you feel the State should intervene? Also, I still await your answer as to your a theoretical race of intelligent aliens would fit into your worldview as relates to this subject.

Because in most cases, it's the ultimate in selfish thinking and behavior. You must be so completely absorbed in and focused on yourself that you are oblivious to the damage you will leave behind you in the lives of others. It also requires you to believe that personal comfort and convenience are more important than what you have to offer the rest of the world by your existence.

Now obviously, there are exceptions to this, as there are to everything. A soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his fellows is, technically, committing suicide, but once again, motivation is everything. He is not motivated by a selfish despair, but by a selfless desire to protect others. As such, I view this act as the height of moral and noble behavior.

I haven't seen a post concerning aliens. Did I miss it somehow?

 

[uscitizen]

What about if the quality of life becomes unacceptable?
Ie extreme pain or loss of function?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I haven't seen a post concerning aliens. Did I miss it somehow?

Why humans above others? What is your reasoning? Again, are implying that it is based only on the social contract and ethics, and not upon any moral a foundation? How would a hypothetical race of intelligent extraterrestrials fit into your scheme?

I was hoping there would be more participants in this discourse :/

Again, how would a hypothetical alien race fit into the picture?

For what reasons, if any, outside of social contract and their ability to aid or act against you, do you elevate humanity above the other races of life?

Also, what of a hypothetical non-biological race of intelligence, such as sentient machines? How would they fit into your philosophy?

Also, I still await your answer as to your a theoretical race of intelligent aliens would fit into your worldview as relates to this subject.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What about if the quality of life becomes unacceptable?
Ie extreme pain or loss of function?

Let me tell you the two lessons I learned from my father's death.

Quality of life is not measured by how much you enjoy yourself, but by how much you add to the lives of those around you.

Dignity is not conveyed by your circumstances, but by the grace with which you deal with them.

 

[AllieBaba]

Gosh Proletarian?? Where you come up with these??

The morality and ethics of death or termination of life??

Abortionis a tough issue, while I agree that abortion is wrong, I do believe there are times where it is required.. Like in the case of saving the mother's life.. So, abortion would be eithical in the case of preventing the mothers death..

Is it safe to assume you also mean you find it moral in these cases?


Why does the manner in which a human life is created determine whether it is moral in your mind to end that life? do you intend to state that a child produced by rape is 'less human' or somehow has less rights or value than a child created through willful and desired intercourse?

You seem to be confused over the ethics andf morality. Contrary to the etymological roots of the term, 'ethics' is used to generally mean widely or socially acceptable, whereas moral is a personal thing.

Do you also believe it to be morally acceptable to help someone end their life without their being in such a state?

As for capital punishment?? While some may call it sociatal defence or whatever.. Bottom line is it is revenge.. Something religion gave us.. I don't believe society has the right to kill someone.. Murder is murder no matter if it is a gun or a needle..

How do you feel about the rest of society being forced to provide for a criminal? Are there any instances where a person surrenders their right to life through their actions?

Yes.. I find it moral as well..

My issue with rape is this.. I morally and ethically have a hard time telling a rape victim she has to keep the child.. What if we were talking about a 13 year old girl??

As for suicide?? No. In most cases we should help the person live.. But there are cases in which suicide is preferable.. Cancer in it's final stages can be very very painful.. Why would we even want to keep someone alive at that point? There is no cure, nothing medicine can do.. They are just going to live in pain until they die.. We kill animals to free then from pain and discomfort, why not our loved ones?

Capital punishment??

Well.. In an ideal world, our prison system would find ways to make prisoners productive in society and earn their keep.. Like the chain gangs of old.. I am sure some of the lower risk prisoners can be used on the farm or something.. Take away some of those jobs from the illegal immagrants.. With todays technology, there is no reason that prisoners can't be used for many of those unwanted jobs..

For the terrorist or murderer??

I guess my thought there is, if we are going to kill them? Why can't we use them then?? Give them cancer and try to cure them then.. Use them as medical lab rats so to speak.. At least then the information they provide will be something.. Or maybe give them that option.. Death or Lab rat..

I don't know.. I am kinda on the fence on some of this..

Rape victims rarely get pregnant. They represent a ridiculously miniscule number of the vast numbers of legal abortions performed. Besides which, many women who become pregnant because of rape choose to have the children and view them as a good thing that came out of something bad. If you want to prevent rape, force abortion clinics to report every single child who comes in with a pregnancy to the authorities. THEY WON'T DO IT. They refuse to do it. And thus they support child rape, incest, and a variety of other very depressing social ills.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Quality of life is not measured by how much you enjoy yourself, but by how much you add to the lives of those around you.

So, basically their happiness means nothing to you so long as they're of use to you when it comes to fulfilling your own needs?

That's fucked up..

 

[uscitizen]

What about if the quality of life becomes unacceptable?
Ie extreme pain or loss of function?

Let me tell you the two lessons I learned from my father's death.

Quality of life is not measured by how much you enjoy yourself, but by how much you add to the lives of those around you.

Dignity is not conveyed by your circumstances, but by the grace with which you deal with them.

HUH?

That is from the selfish viewpoint of those left.
Have some consideration for the suffering an dying (just not quick enough sometimes) won't ya?

That last line sounds like it came from literature dealing with grief and loss.