• 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!

Right to Die

A

Atheist 2020

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2018
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
290
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
During my college years I worked as a security guard and left the profession as a Captain. The last placed I worked was a nursing home campus were they had people so ill they were dying more than the days of the months. I noticed these people were suffering and there was nothing that could be done to stop that from happening. After that experience, I have accepted the right to die states. It is much better to go out on your own terms then wasting away sick and ill without a social support group. The Right to Die should be legal in all the states.
 
There is no need for people to be kept alive against their will, in pain. It's immoral IMO to subject people to that against their will.

There should be counseling and a *brief* legal process to enable assisted suicide.

and people should take measures, before they are ill, to do the paperwork that currently allows relatives to support their wishes for no heroic measures and DNR orders.
 
Letting a person die naturally is one thing, suicide another. The problem is when there is no directive and family members keep the person alive with no hope of recovery.
 
I think the right to die should be one of the most fundamental rights one can have. None of us had a say in being brought into this world. We should at least have a say in how we go out.
 
All rights are a choice. No right is an obligation. When a soldier sacrifices for others, they are not giving up their right they are exercising it.

It's not important that one lives or expresses or defends. It's important those things are one's choice.

To construe a right as an obligation is wrong headed.
 
Last edited:
Something I feel very strongly about, especially after watching my mother become a vegetable through dementia. For the last two years of her life she laid in her bed doing nothing but being turned regularly, fed three times a day, and changed when necessary. If you kept a dog like that you would be arrested for cruelty, but for some strange reason there is a belief amongst some people that human life is somehow different. If I were given the option I would have her euthanized years before her departure

Your pension and health care systems are different to ours in the UK, so you may think differently, but I have a great idea, albeit I don't think it will ever happen. Imagine being retired at 55 years old and being given a generous state pension. Imagine an NHS service that works. Imagine not having to die over a long period of time, most often in pain. Imagine being able to plan your finances to the last minute, and being able to say good bye to all those you love. Well, it's possible. If the UK government pensioned everyone off at the age of 55 and then euthanized at an approximate age of 70 then all this could be possible. Between 85% and 90% of NHS costs go on people over the age of 70, meaning if they weren't around the NHS could be made smaller and a damn site more efficient. Knowing what age you are going to die allows you to make financial provisions, and without doubt peoples standard of living would rise. It wasn't long ago 70 was considered a good life span, it's only recently people having been surviving longer. Honestly, this plan has know flaws, but unfortunately human beings tend to think emotively rather than logically, and for that reason we will continue to live longer, hog hospital beds, have long drawn our painful deaths, and will either be to ill to spend our wealth, or to scared.
 
Mary Dunsmore said:
If the UK government pensioned everyone off at the age of 55 and then euthanized at an approximate age of 70 then all this could be possible. Between 85% and 90% of NHS costs go on people over the age of 70, meaning if they weren't around the NHS could be made smaller and a damn site more efficient.
Click to expand...

Are you trolling? Murder everyone at 70 and pretend it's euthanasia? :roll:

The best (and still quite feeble) argument against assisted suicide is the slippery slope in which financial concerns would supposedly have family and healthcare workers pressuring sick people to die. That has not proven to be the case in countries which have legalised it (it would be remarkable if it had, considering the lengths folk often go to even to help their pets live!), but you seem eager slide down that slope even further.
 
Mary Dunsmore said:
Something I feel very strongly about, especially after watching my mother become a vegetable through dementia. For the last two years of her life she laid in her bed doing nothing but being turned regularly, fed three times a day, and changed when necessary. If you kept a dog like that you would be arrested for cruelty, but for some strange reason there is a belief amongst some people that human life is somehow different. If I were given the option I would have her euthanized years before her departure

Your pension and health care systems are different to ours in the UK, so you may think differently, but I have a great idea, albeit I don't think it will ever happen. Imagine being retired at 55 years old and being given a generous state pension. Imagine an NHS service that works. Imagine not having to die over a long period of time, most often in pain. Imagine being able to plan your finances to the last minute, and being able to say good bye to all those you love. Well, it's possible. If the UK government pensioned everyone off at the age of 55 and then euthanized at an approximate age of 70 then all this could be possible. Between 85% and 90% of NHS costs go on people over the age of 70, meaning if they weren't around the NHS could be made smaller and a damn site more efficient. Knowing what age you are going to die allows you to make financial provisions, and without doubt peoples standard of living would rise. It wasn't long ago 70 was considered a good life span, it's only recently people having been surviving longer. Honestly, this plan has know flaws, but unfortunately human beings tend to think emotively rather than logically, and for that reason we will continue to live longer, hog hospital beds, have long drawn our painful deaths, and will either be to ill to spend our wealth, or to scared.
Click to expand...

Er, I find it hard to believe this is a serious proposal but if so, you really did leave out the 'logical' part.

Esp. considering how much people over 70 still do in life and contribute to society.
 
Lursa said:
Er, I find it hard to believe this is a serious proposal but if so, you really did leave out the 'logical' part.

Esp. considering how much people over 70 still do in life and contribute to society.
Click to expand...

The over seventies contribute little to society, other than take up hospital beds. To keep them alive may be compassionate, but it bears little logic. Like I said in my thread, imagine being able to have a good pension at 55, imagine being able to plan all your finances, imagine reducing the possibility of a long drawn out painful death. My plan is flawless, albeit a little difficult to come to terms with until you have given it serious thought. I am 61, retired, and live off of my savings. If the government were prepared to give me a decent pension now, I would be more than happy to go when I am 70, more than happy !!
 
Mithrae said:
Are you trolling? Murder everyone at 70 and pretend it's euthanasia? :roll:

The best (and still quite feeble) argument against assisted suicide is the slippery slope in which financial concerns would supposedly have family and healthcare workers pressuring sick people to die. That has not proven to be the case in countries which have legalised it (it would be remarkable if it had, considering the lengths folk often go to even to help their pets live!), but you seem eager slide down that slope even further.
Click to expand...

The planet has is approximately 7.6 billion people living on it. As well as the other logical factors behind my proposal, euthanasia at 70 would help reduce a very over populated specie. We worry that there may be too many foxes, too many dear, or too many badgers, but for some strange reason we ignore the fact human beings are destroying the world. For so many reasons my idea works.
 
Mary Dunsmore said:
The over seventies contribute little to society, other than take up hospital beds. To keep them alive may be compassionate, but it bears little logic. Like I said in my thread, imagine being able to have a good pension at 55, imagine being able to plan all your finances, imagine reducing the possibility of a long drawn out painful death. My plan is flawless, albeit a little difficult to come to terms with until you have given it serious thought. I am 61, retired, and live off of my savings. If the government were prepared to give me a decent pension now, I would be more than happy to go when I am 70, more than happy !!
Click to expand...

I'm more than happy for you to go at 70 too. What's wrong with 62?
 
Mary Dunsmore said:
The planet has is approximately 7.6 billion people living on it. As well as the other logical factors behind my proposal, euthanasia at 70 would help reduce a very over populated specie. We worry that there may be too many foxes, too many dear, or too many badgers, but for some strange reason we ignore the fact human beings are destroying the world. For so many reasons my idea works.
Click to expand...

Again, you mean murdering people at 70, not euthanasia. That's the word when you're talking about killing people whether they like it or not.

As for overpopulation, in some regions that can be a problem, but globally it's a trivial one compared to over-consumption. More than 70% of global population (>5.5 billion people) own less than 3% of global wealth (>$10,000 per adult). 'Overpopulation' is a convenient narrative for blaming the poor, but it's the ~9% of global population (700 million) who control more than 80% of global wealth who are really the ones to worry about right now: And encouraging them to spend their 60s living large would quite probably make it even worse!

The planet is big enough for ten billion people's needs, but far too small to satisfy even two billion people's greed.
 
Mary Dunsmore said:
The over seventies contribute little to society, other than take up hospital beds. To keep them alive may be compassionate, but it bears little logic. Like I said in my thread, imagine being able to have a good pension at 55, imagine being able to plan all your finances, imagine reducing the possibility of a long drawn out painful death. My plan is flawless, albeit a little difficult to come to terms with until you have given it serious thought. I am 61, retired, and live off of my savings. If the government were prepared to give me a decent pension now, I would be more than happy to go when I am 70, more than happy !!
Click to expand...

Sorry, I know plenty of 'over 70's' people and I'm still competing against them and riding with them.

I cant speak for the UK of course but here in America, that crowd is still going strong.

And 'flawless' is just your opinion. Certainly no one enjoying life after 70 would agree.
 
0000000.jpg
 
Mithrae said:
Again, you mean murdering people at 70, not euthanasia. That's the word when you're talking about killing people whether they like it or not.

As for overpopulation, in some regions that can be a problem, but globally it's a trivial one compared to over-consumption. More than 70% of global population (>5.5 billion people) own less than 3% of global wealth (>$10,000 per adult). 'Overpopulation' is a convenient narrative for blaming the poor, but it's the ~9% of global population (700 million) who control more than 80% of global wealth who are really the ones to worry about right now: And encouraging them to spend their 60s living large would quite probably make it even worse!

The planet is big enough for ten billion people's needs, but far too small to satisfy even two billion people's greed.
Click to expand...

You sound like my son, who incidentally is a socialist liberal. That was hard to admit, as I would have preferred to tell you all he is a mass murderer. Anyway, that has nothing to do with my idea. The US don't really have much of a social care system and allow the people without money to die anyway, so my idea isn't so relevant to you. In the UK we spend billions of pounds every year on keeping old people alive so they can live longer, whilst at the same time claiming their state pensions. If that isn't enough, it is the over 70s who take up all the desperately needed hospital beds. The government can't ever hope to be able to put enough money into the NHS to make it work properly because of the ageing population and mass immigration, and the public won't allow a private health care system to take over. The only answer is to get rid of the old people, but to compensate them by giving them a good early retirement. I really don't care if you want to call it euthanasia or murder, because it doesn't bother me. What's certain though is that it would be painless, unlike the death they are most likely to face in future years.
 
Mary Dunsmore said:
Something I feel very strongly about, especially after watching my mother become a vegetable through dementia. For the last two years of her life she laid in her bed doing nothing but being turned regularly, fed three times a day, and changed when necessary. If you kept a dog like that you would be arrested for cruelty, but for some strange reason there is a belief amongst some people that human life is somehow different. If I were given the option I would have her euthanized years before her departure

Your pension and health care systems are different to ours in the UK, so you may think differently, but I have a great idea, albeit I don't think it will ever happen. Imagine being retired at 55 years old and being given a generous state pension. Imagine an NHS service that works. Imagine not having to die over a long period of time, most often in pain. Imagine being able to plan your finances to the last minute, and being able to say good bye to all those you love. Well, it's possible. If the UK government pensioned everyone off at the age of 55 and then euthanized at an approximate age of 70 then all this could be possible. Between 85% and 90% of NHS costs go on people over the age of 70, meaning if they weren't around the NHS could be made smaller and a damn site more efficient. Knowing what age you are going to die allows you to make financial provisions, and without doubt peoples standard of living would rise. It wasn't long ago 70 was considered a good life span, it's only recently people having been surviving longer. Honestly, this plan has know flaws, but unfortunately human beings tend to think emotively rather than logically, and for that reason we will continue to live longer, hog hospital beds, have long drawn our painful deaths, and will either be to ill to spend our wealth, or to scared.
Click to expand...

Oh dear Mary! I have lived 12 years beyond your mandatory age of seventy. My sincere apologies.

(Note to self: Keep well away from Ms Dunsmore-)
 
Mary Dunsmore said:
You sound like my son, who incidentally is a socialist liberal. That was hard to admit, as I would have preferred to tell you all he is a mass murderer.
Click to expand...

Your views of humanity become clearer and clearer and along with your proposal of murdering people at 70 yrs old, I'd say you are posting here purely for sensationalist attention.
 
Lursa said:
Your views of humanity become clearer and clearer and along with your proposal of murdering people at 70 yrs old, I'd say you are posting here purely for sensationalist attention.
Click to expand...

How wrong you are. You appear not to be able to look beyond a short term future. Human beings are no more a part of nature than a fly or a mouse. In fact, it can be argued we are a negative influence, where they are not. I see our existence in a logical manner, rather than an emotive one. We are happy to destroy a dog when it's time comes, we are happy to kill innocent animals because WE consider their specie is overpopulated, but people such as yourselves find it offensive when someone with a logical outlook suggests people of certain age are euthanized for the good of the population. NOT sensationalism, common sense !!
 
Mary Dunsmore said:
How wrong you are. You appear not to be able to look beyond a short term future. Human beings are no more a part of nature than a fly or a mouse. In fact, it can be argued we are a negative influence, where they are not. I see our existence in a logical manner, rather than an emotive one. We are happy to destroy a dog when it's time comes, we are happy to kill innocent animals because WE consider their specie is overpopulated, but people such as yourselves find it offensive when someone with a logical outlook suggests people of certain age are euthanized for the good of the population. NOT sensationalism, common sense !!
Click to expand...

That's no defense for your proposal.

If that's your reasoning, there's no reason for any murder to be illegal then.
 
Mary Dunsmore said:
The over seventies contribute little to society, other than take up hospital beds. To keep them alive may be compassionate, but it bears little logic. Like I said in my thread, imagine being able to have a good pension at 55, imagine being able to plan all your finances, imagine reducing the possibility of a long drawn out painful death. My plan is flawless, albeit a little difficult to come to terms with until you have given it serious thought. I am 61, retired, and live off of my savings. If the government were prepared to give me a decent pension now, I would be more than happy to go when I am 70, more than happy !!
Click to expand...

Why not now instead of 70? You said you are retired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom