• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Headin' Out

Your thoughts on the right to die at the time of your choosing.

  • Assisted death is murder, I would never support this.

    Votes: 4 8.2%

  • Assisted death should be supported by law.

    Votes: 37 75.5%

  • I am uncertain, there should be strong regulation.

    Votes: 5 10.2%

  • Other

    Votes: 3 6.1%
  • Total voters
    49
Assisted suicide should be legal.

_Sal said:
Do you have qualifiers?
Click to expand...

Yes. There should be a lower age limit. Not necessarily 18, but someone needs to be old enough to understand the permanency of the decision. You need to be judged to be of sound mind. And it should be a decision that you can only make yourself. No one, regardless of whether they have power of attorney over you or are your next of kin, should be allowed to make the decision for you.
 
JayDubya said:
I'm done with your garbage personal attacks, herald.

Just reread the previous post about why your insistence is absurd until you get it. I can't prove something currently is what it needs to be but isn't.

Or continue to not get it, but then don't wonder why I'm not responding.
Click to expand...

I'm tired of your extremist garbage too. You have been very irrational and use dishonest tactics in your "discussion:,


What is it with you people who have to come in to these threads and throw your weight around and not let us have a reasonable and rational discussion?

You are not correct in this issue of abortion. Abortion is not murder, and rational people see the need for it.
 
I'm opposed to abortion but I support a person's right to medically assisted suicide.

I don't believe that people should have the right to kill other people for the sake of convenience but I have no objection to people killing themselves if they so choose.
 
Ancient Herald said:
And statements like that is a personal attack too.
Click to expand...

That is delusional.

How is noting that someone else does not share the value that human beings have a right to their own life constitute "a personal attack?"

I am unwilling to substitute your perception of reality for reality, sorry.
 
Ancient Herald said:
That is pure deluxe sophistry.

America is not a just society, that much is true. America is a society built on hatred and intolerance of people who are different than them.

But the onus is still on you to prove that abortion is murder. the supreme court does not agree with you.

you are an extremist who thinks entirely in black and white.

abortion is not so simple of a matter of it is murder when you end the fetus.

Because if the fetus has the right to live, and the right to a voice, and the right to adefense...

THEN SO DOES THE MOTHER.

You are not a just person.

All you're really saying is that the fetus is more valuable than the mother when you write her out of the picture.

And that is not a just position. That is the position of all tyrants.

But this is just going around the mulberry bush so early in the morning.

A just position is to allow the other to have her choice.
Click to expand...

That argument only makes sense if the life of the mother is in imminent danger as a consequence of carrying the pregnancy to full term.

If it's a toss up between the life of the mother and the life of the baby then there's an equivalency.

If the abortion is carried out as a matter of convenience, as almost all are, and you're weighing the life of the baby against the mother's convenience then the right to life wins every time.
 
JayDubya said:
Are you claiming that the person who wants to die is attacking someone else?

Otherwise, no, killing them is not justified and is aggressive.

Again – "unalienable." You cannot abdicate an unalienable right. You cannot give up your right to own property. You cannot literally become someone else's slave. No one else ever has the right to kill you unless you are attacking them and the killing is only for the purposes of self-defense.
Click to expand...

But what if the guy who wrote that, 'unalienable' (inalienable?) got it wrong in this case? Does that mean it has to stay wrong forever?
 
JayDubya said:
That is delusional.

How is noting that someone else does not share the value that human beings have a right to their own life constitute "a personal attack?"

I am unwilling to substitute your perception of reality for reality, sorry.
Click to expand...

because under your definitions, you are calling them a criminal and a murderer. That is a personal attack, and also slander and defamation of character.

And you should stop your nonsense because you have probably been reported and a mod will soon get in this thread.
 
Grand Mal said:
But what if the guy who wrote that, 'unalienable' (inalienable?) got it wrong in this case? Does that mean it has to stay wrong forever?
Click to expand...

For those who wish to abandon the mission statement of United States, there are many other nations in which they can reside.
 
soot said:
That argument only makes sense if the life of the mother is in imminent danger as a consequence of carrying the pregnancy to full term.

If it's a toss up between the life of the mother and the life of the baby then there's an equivalency.

If the abortion is carried out as a matter of convenience, as almost all are, and you're weighing the life of the baby against the mother's convenience then the right to life wins every time.
Click to expand...

So why would the baby be more valuable than the mother?

If you value life, then all life is equally valuable.

which then goes right back to allowing the mother to choose.

Otherwise, ti's entirely nonsense and you really don't value life, you are just fixated on the fetus.
 
JayDubya said:
For those who wish to abandon the mission statement of United States, there are many other nations in which they can reside.
Click to expand...

It's all or nothing?
 
Ancient Herald said:
because under your definitions, you are calling them a criminal and a murderer. That is a personal attack, and also slander and defamation of character.

And you should stop your nonsense because you have probably been reported and a mod will soon get in this thread.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense at all. None of that logically follows.

Just because someone does not value the rights of others does not necessarily mean they have or will violate the rights of others.

Indeed, it is difference in values that leads to political debate.

You want to report me for something I didn't say, be my guest. :lamo
 
gdgyva said:
i have watched a few people wither away now....not pleasant

My dad fought the cancer all the way through....never gave in

While another wanted an early exit away from the pain

This is a hard subject for me....and not sure if i have a definitive answer at this point

Do i think a person should have the right to terminate their own life when they are terminal, and only pain is in their immediate future....yeah, i think i do

Do i think people who are NOT terminal have that same right....that is really where this gets murky for me

Take someone with alzheimer's, or dementia where they know they will only get worse....but it is not a terminal illness....do i want to give then the same right? i think so....but then i wonder, where do we draw the line? Or do we?

This is not cut and dry for me....but i am definitely leaning towards the right to terminate

I just need it more clarified on what will be and wont be allowed
Click to expand...

yes I understand the struggle, the older I get the more clear it is for me, but it is an issue that should be grappled with I believe. We have to be clear about what we support and under what circumstances we would alter our support or change positions.

I am Canadian and there was a case recently in one of our western provinces. She had been a psychiatrist and was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. She knew exactly how the disease would progress. We do not have the right to assisted death here yet. I know in many first world countries if you have a compassionate doctor and hospital staff they can adjust pain meds to help with an early exit in some cases. But not in all...it depends upon the disease.

This woman let her family know she would not be willing to deteriorate completely and that she would handle things herself. When she was ready, she acquired the drugs she needed, laced them with whiskey, and exited on her own terms, outside on a mattress on the day she choose.

But she had the type of training so she wouldn't botch it. Most would not so they would have to research it and it would be a guessing game.

I admire her and her family and the grace with which they handled it.

Their only complaint was that had their mother known she could have had assistance later, she would not have chosen to die as early as she did. She choose early to ensure a smooth death and in order to protect her family from a bad position filled with guilt and confusion.
 
molten_dragon said:
Assisted suicide should be legal.



Yes. There should be a lower age limit. Not necessarily 18, but someone needs to be old enough to understand the permanency of the decision. You need to be judged to be of sound mind. And it should be a decision that you can only make yourself. No one, regardless of whether they have power of attorney over you or are your next of kin, should be allowed to make the decision for you.
Click to expand...

here you raise an interesting point which I am still a bit hazy on which is children who are terminal but make it known that they would chose to exit...I am leaning toward yes (I think)
 
JayDubya said:
That makes no sense at all. None of that logically follows.

Just because someone does not value the rights of others does not necessarily mean they have or will violate the rights of others.

Indeed, it is difference in values that leads to political debate.

You want to report me for something I didn't say, be my guest. :lamo
Click to expand...

Yes it does absolutely mean that. If you do not value rights, then you will trample all over them.

that is happening all a cross America today in many different ways.
 
Anyone with their wits about them can commit suicide; having the physical capability of doing so via an active means is not required but is present in most cases.

If the fear is that you may lose that cognitive ability, there are already standard legal documents available and widely accepted regarding the refusal of care.
 
Ancient Herald said:
You have to prove abortion is murder first.

And that is something you cannot do.
Click to expand...

Why not...the SCOTUS just said is wasn't and it became law.

Who the Hell are they to be saying what's not murder?
 
_Sal said:
yes I understand the struggle, the older I get the more clear it is for me, but it is an issue that should be grappled with I believe. We have to be clear about what we support and under what circumstances we would alter our support or change positions.

I am Canadian and there was a case recently in one of our western provinces. She had been a psychiatrist and was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. She knew exactly how the disease would progress. We do not have the right to assisted death here yet. I know in many first world countries if you have a compassionate doctor and hospital staff they can adjust pain meds to help with an early exit in some cases. But not in all...it depends upon the disease.

This woman let her family know she would not be willing to deteriorate completely and that she would handle things herself. When she was ready, she acquired the drugs she needed, laced them with whiskey, and exited on her own terms, outside on a mattress on the day she choose.

But she had the type of training so she wouldn't botch it. Most would not so they would have to research it and it would be a guessing game.

I admire her and her family and the grace with which they handled it.

Their only complaint was that had their mother known she could have had assistance later, she would not have chosen to die as early as she did. She choose early to ensure a smooth death and in order to protect her family from a bad position filled with guilt and confusion.
Click to expand...

after watching my father, my wife and i sat down and really discussed our wishes with each other

the last thing each of us wants, is to be a huge burden on the other

i am not sure i could deal with doing that to my wife.....

this is just one of many issues i struggle with....and my point of view has definitely changed as i have aged

i know families that are dealing with it now....

especially with older parents....where they cant take care of themselves anymore

and the cost of homes....well, if you havent checked, you better have a huge bank account

as we get older and older as a nation, this is going to become more and more of an issue

it is one that needs to be talked about....
 
WCH said:
Why not...the SCOTUS just said is wasn't and it became law.

Who the Hell are they to be saying what's not murder?
Click to expand...

Who the hell are you to be saying it is?

If you claim God then you are claiming a baby killer who endorses abortions so you defeat yourself.
 
Ancient Herald said:
Who the hell are you to be saying it is?

If you claim God then you are claiming a baby killer who endorses abortions so you defeat yourself.
Click to expand...

We let mere mortals decide what is murder and whether it's OK to do and when.

Where was their proof?
 
WCH said:
We let mere mortals decide what is murder and whether it's OK to do and when.

Where was their proof?
Click to expand...

Where is yours?

Stop trying to turn this against me. The onus is on you to prove it.

not argue, not claim.

PROVE.
 
Assisted suicide is one thing, euthanasia is quite another. The former involves a physician providing the drugs to the patient and the patient using them to end their own lives; the latter involves the physician injecting the drugs to the incapacitated patient. I have no issue with assisted suicide at all. It should be legal in all cases. We should have the right to kill ourselves at any time, for any reason. Whether we buy a gun or a cocktail of drugs to do it makes no difference to me. As for euthanasia, I'm only okay with it if the patient is not mentally incapacitated and is in too much pain and/or physically handicapped enough that they're not able to kill themselves.
 
gdgyva said:
after watching my father, my wife and i sat down and really discussed our wishes with each other

the last thing each of us wants, is to be a huge burden on the other

i am not sure i could deal with doing that to my wife.....

this is just one of many issues i struggle with....and my point of view has definitely changed as i have aged

i know families that are dealing with it now....

especially with older parents....where they cant take care of themselves anymore

and the cost of homes....well, if you havent checked, you better have a huge bank account

as we get older and older as a nation, this is going to become more and more of an issue

it is one that needs to be talked about....
Click to expand...

I agree.

We too have had this serious talk and am glad to say we are both on the same page...I do not want to linger, coughing and choking and spitting up my own guts, coherent enough to be screaming in agony and yet too drugged to communicate.

I have also made certain I have a living will that is clear about my wishes and have changed my power of attorney...I don't want anyone standing over my bed keeping me alive to salve their own twisted unresolved issues. Their confusion about their god, their life values and death can be resolved with some other physical body, not mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom