|
Explicit Ills (2008)
IMDB rating: 7.70
Plot: A drama of four interconnecting stories revolving around love, drugs and poverty in Philadelphia.
|
i find Explicit Ills iPod/iPhone version and download
Directors: Webber Mark
Actors: Cepeda Martin,Burgos Francisco,Crawford Jermaine,Dano Paul,Dowlin Tim,Hansard Joe,Kim-McManus Ross K.,Lavin Jacob,Niemczyk Stefan,Patrikios Peter,Pucci Lou Taylor,Rekhi Ben,Robertson Ronald,Rosanio Rocco,Drama,
Can someone provide an argument against voluntary euthanasia for the terminally ill without mentioning God?
The debate about assisted suicide has been in the news a lot recently and every time the opposition is some cardinal or rabbi (why they should get a say in the matter is beyond me) and i’ve yet to hear an argument against that does not possess an explicit or implicit religious slant. Can someone give a logically consistent, secular argument against ?
btw i am in favour of assisted suicide i think its up to that person, i’m just interested to see what the arguments against it are
I am for it too. I hear people say we should not make that decision for someone else, but I am talking, as I suppose you are, about people asking for themselves. The argument is generally, the health may improve. He may come out of the coma. At a certain age and with certain illnesses, this isn’t likely, but shouldn’t I be able to decide what I want to do with my life, or when and how I wish to die?
By the way, I am a Christian, so you are aware that I know all of the God-arguments.
We are very quick to put an animal "out of its misery", but we think it wrong to give that same gift to a human.
PattyAnn | Sep 01, 2009
Its just a sad state of human affairs
TEH TYME KITTEH ~pantheist~ | Sep 01, 2009
All consciousness is a manifestation of information, any loss in accrued information is a tragedy.
Veritas | Sep 01, 2009
I tend to be for it, but you have to be really careful the person is actually able to rationally make the decision.
Mommy | Sep 01, 2009
We are all terminally ill. Just at different stages……>
10 out of every 10 people die….>
Where do you draw the line?….>
The Apostle | Sep 01, 2009
Euthanasia might be considered a little harsh if the terminally ill person doesn’t want it.
Reverend RA | Sep 01, 2009
There was a time when people were creative with their suicides. Like skydiving without pulling the parachute. That one sounds fun, and death would be instantaneous. When fun, interesting suicides exist, why waste the time of a doctor?
Optimus Rhyme | Sep 01, 2009
Interesting. I’m in favor of voluntary euthanasia, but I’ll try.
Were voluntary euthanasia to become popular, it would reduce the number of health professionals and support staff necessary in society, thereby removing a sector of job growth and damaging the economy.
Blackacre | Sep 01, 2009
Doctors vow to do everything they can, to save a life.
Asking them to don’t, means you’re disrespecting them.
Cakrayodhin | Sep 01, 2009
people are in charge og their own lives and should (sanity permitting) be allowed to end it should they wish.
the passenger | Sep 01, 2009
A non-religious argument would be "where do you draw the line?" How do you decide in which cases euthanasia should be permitted? There is a danger that people might be killed if they don’t want to be if it is left up to doctors, and another danger that people could just choose to die if they want to if the boundaries become wider and wider. This then acts upon the definitions of murder and suicide. Unless the circumstances under which euthanasia is permitted are tight and strictly regulated, numerous logical and legal problems might arise. The easiest way out is to just ban it completely.
I don’t necessarily agree with this, but I put it forward as a possible non-religious argument.
The Dark Side | Sep 01, 2009
I wish it happened more often that way when I want my Social security it will still be there.
The Robot Devil | Sep 01, 2009
Theoretically, it could be abused. The family of a terminally ill person might persuade their sick relative to end it all I suppose it’s possible some opponents of assisted suicide fear that the person deciding to commit suicide might not be terminal (yet), may not be in pain that cannot be alleviated, and may not have exhausted every option to alleviate suffering.
I still believe that it should be up to the patient and his/her doctor, but I could give an argument against it without bringing in the religious slant.
VeggieTart (The Cranky Agnostic) | Sep 01, 2009
Things that are sold are supposed to be things of value. Death is the negation of the ability to obtain things of value. Therefore, those who sell death are not selling something of value. Thus, it is not a proper service, and must be prohibited.
jtrusnik | Sep 01, 2009
"Assisted suicide" is a euphemism for murder. Would you favor a law on the books stating that it is acceptable to murder someone if they ask you to??
PaulCyp | Sep 01, 2009
No, It can not be done.
Nobody can make an absolute and logical argument, apart from God, for or against any type of behavior.
If there is not an absolute and transcendent moral law, then there is no basis for arguing the rightness or wrongness of any behavior.
Basically what you have is a free for all. Or the next best thing you could possibly argue is a level of morality that is based either on popular demand, will of the mighty, or whatever you can personally get away with.
This would include each and any behavior under the sun. For instance, could you "provide an argument against public masturbation without mentioning God?"
I don’t think it can be done on an absolute basis. Why is up to you, (and why you should get a say in the matter is beyond me) to say that I cannot do with my own body whatever I want. If you don’t like it, look away. You do not get upset if I rub a sore muscle. You do not get upset if I blow my nose. You do not get upset if someone looks at a child playing on a swing set and smiles because they well up with a feeling of love and affection for the innocents of youth.
So, apart from an absolute moral law that says it is a total abomination to do certain things with certain intentions in the heart and mind, how can you argue that public masturbation in parks by sexually stimulated people is wrong?
I will check back for your answer. I thank you in advance for your well thought out answer.
jim761076 | Sep 01, 2009
I am a Christian. I am not against voluntary euthanasia for the terminally ill. I do worry that like everything else in life that it will be misused to dispose of people society doesn’t like, the mentally ill, the elderly etc. I see visions of Huxley’s books.
PROBLEM JPAS A.R.T. | Sep 01, 2009
Well, since I am a Christian and a Christian worldview effects every part of my life, this will be difficult, but I’ll give it a shot.
I think it would boil down to this; does human life have an intrinsic value, or an imputed one.
If human life has an imputed value, meaning it is valuable only to the extent someone considers it valuable, then euthanasia would be a viable option. However, I would be opposed to this since it also would allow any kind of mass murder as well. If a person, or a group, or a political party were to determine that another person, group, or political party had no value, then it would be fine to kill them. This was a big part of eugencs, which said that certain people (blacks and the mentally retarded), did not deserve to reproduce and would be less of a burden on society if they ceased to exist. This was also part of Hitlers Final Solution, wherein he determined that Jews had no value and thus can and should be killed. This is the basis for most pro-choice positions that determine an unborn life has no value and the basis for those who consider the handicapped, comatose, and any child under the age of 28 days to not be human and instead a burden on society.
On the other hand, if human life has an intrinsic value, if it is valuable simply because it is human life, then this changes. Since the imputed position is so distainful and leads to so much death and unintended consequences, the only logical position that would allow us to keep a civil society is to assume that human life has intrinsic value. This would have to be an absolute truth, regardless of ones physical or mental condition because the instant you allow the death of any one classification of human beings, you are then in the imputed camp with you determining who has the right to live and who does not.
Tim | Sep 01, 2009
Sometimes the patient is not in their right mind. I don’t think we should let a person die because they are experiencing terrible pain that is only temporary. For example a child seriously hurts him/herself and screams "I wanna die" I don’t think that the child should be listened to as the condition is likely not life threatening. Same goes for older people. Some people have a real problem with pain and say things they think they mean and at the time they might but they wouldn’t if they knew what was ahead. Also there would be a lot of lawsuits by families because of wrongful death because there would be cases in which the patient would make a full recovery. Also the system could be abused way too easily. If a doctor had something against someone he could say that the person told him to do it. I know that there are arguments against this but there are counter arguments against that as well which I am too lazy right now to post. I think it is a bad idea. I really don’t want my life thrown away because sometime I might be in a lot of pain and feel like dying. This is a totally secular argument.
accurate | Sep 01, 2009
