If Euthanasia is morally wrong than what would Abortion be?

Air_: Taking the life of a person who wants to die vs taking the life of a person who wants to live.

Comrade_: They're both different things. One is an adult choice, the other has no say/input on the matter.

Air_: Those are the facts, but my question is from a moral standpoint. Euthanasia for people is a choice to die. For dogs its not a choice, nor for horses with no foot. So why should abortion be legal on the count of what a person wants to do with their bodies? Abortion should be illegal. Especially since Hospitals are now equipped with rape kits and emergency contraception.

No one wants to be told what to do, but then again if Abortion should be legal, than so should suicide by any means.

Comrade_: When animals go through it, it is usually done because living will be harder for them or that there is no solution to their suffering. When abortion is done, this is rarely the case. Also we as humans have a higher view of our own lives than on animals.
Abortion is a tricky topic because all the cases are different, and in some cases it is necessary to be done while in others it is unnecessary.

I don't like the phrase "it is my body" as biologically it is not. Suicide is a person's body. But we need those laws to prevent it as...humans are stupid beings.

Air_: We cant take care of everyone though even though we try, but why kill a child? For any reason...and even with the advances in technology. I think in the case of Abortion when it comes to rape the sooner a victim can have her body cleansed, the better for her. I dont agree with waiting until the 3rd or even 6th month to wait to abort. I think its irresponsible and also puts the mother at risk.

You are right...we humans do have a higher view of our own lives than animals because they cannot communicate as we do. But I know we do take care of them, as well as our environment. Either way why is it that for animals we can make the determination of suffering but a human being who is suffering cannot just be euthanized per se, but its legal for a baby who is fighting to live? I wouldnt even ask an unborn whether they want to live or not...why? because the fact that they grow, mature and are born...is enough that they should have the opportunity of life when there are so many who dont wont fight.

LiptonCambell: >>>So why should abortion be legal on the count of what a person wants to do with their bodies?

I think you answered it already. Abortion should be legal because it is the womans body, and her choice- no one elses.

Air_: Read my post again Lipton...its everything to the contrary of that.

LiptonCambell: Are you suggesting a woman should be forced to carry a child against their will?

Air_: People are not allowed to commit suicide and they are forced to 'live' against their will too.

LiptonCambell: You didn't answer my question.

Dennae:
Don't know about your laws but suicide is not illegal.

As for euthanasia in England see Forum Topic
Topic: Off Topic

As for terminations - on a case by case basis , it should be a decision made by the only person/s it involves - the parent/s.

Air_: Of course suicide isn't illegal. When you are dead, you're dead.

Lipton, you're question is irrelevant. You want a woman to kill a baby and claim its her body and she does what she wants, but can the same be said of those who want to die and they are forced to live against their will....unless they are completely unconscious and cannot breathe on their own because it would cost money.

That is the only time where its OK to say remove the tubes. You are still killing the person aren't you?

LiptonCambell: >>>Lipton, you're question is irrelevant.

It absolutely is relevant. If your beliefs were law, then any and all women who become pregnant should be forced to carry a child against her will.

Do you agree with that statement or not?

Suggesting that it is irrelevant is simply being willfully ignorant of the effect your beliefs hold. It is a part of the issue- claiming it isn't is an utter refusal to look at the whole picture- because whether you like it or not, there will be people who do not want a child but will find themselves pregnant. That's the real world- having abortions declared illegal will not end all abortions- it will only do one of two things for those who wish to have them- either endanger the pregnant woman because she will have to either abort the child herself or use the criminal element in back alley abortions , or force her to carry a child against her will.

Suggesting that such an issue is unworthy of discussion is taking a blind eye to unpleasant realities of what you are trying to suggest, pretending that if you don't acknowledge it, that it doesn't really exist. But it does.

>>>You want a woman to kill a baby and claim its her body and she does what she wants,

Who said I wanted any woman to have an abortion?

I never claimed anything of the sort. I said it wasn't my or your choice to make- and I merely asked you if you are suggesting that a a pregnant woman should be forced against her will to carry the child to term.

What is so hard about giving me a simple "yes" or "no"? Why do you pretend like the question has nothing to do with the subject?

>>>You are still killing the person aren't you?

It's debatable as to what makes a person. Certainly having consciousness, feeling pain, and having brain activity- these are the things I would argue makes a person. And for the vast majority of abortions, they don't meet that criteria.

Comrade_: It's arguable that the foetus is not part of the woman's body, only housed within it for a time spanning 9 mths (more/less) They don't carry the exact dna, some cases they don't carry the same gender/blood type. An arm of the woman is part of the her body. The decision of abortion should be discussed with the father too, letting him give his input on not aborting.

LiptonCambell: >>> It's arguable that the foetus is not part of the woman's body,

I agree that it's arguable- and for that reason alone, abortions should stay legal. What defines us as human beings is not a simple query to answer...for some people, it's at conception- for others, it's later- it should be left to the individual to make these kinds of decisions for themselves, since the entire issue is up for debate.

The alternative is to force others to accept your beliefs on what make someone a human being, under penalty of law. It's so authoritative and petty to take such a stance- that you know better than everyone else, and should someone disagree, they should be punished.

>>>The decision of abortion should be discussed with the father too, letting him give his input on not aborting.

I couldn't agree more- but I'm conflicted on that issue....I mean, if the father wants to keep the kid, does that mean the mother must let him use her body as an incubator for the next 9 months against her will?

Or what if the father doesn't want to keep the child?

I've thought a legal "abortion" could be the solution....that a father should be allowed to legally denounce his fatherhood to the child.....because it is kinda lame how a woman holds all the cards in that situation...

Nonetheless, all of these things derail from the core reasons behind the issue. In all fairness, this issue, ultimately, has nothing to do with men, and men should never have a say.

Which is pretty lame...

Air_: So then if I owe $200 to cable, when I spent the time to watch it, and now I refuse to pay it, I get to skirt my responsibility of paying the bill to the cable company? Most women who get pregnant aren't forced at gun point to do so. If the father doesn't want to keep the child, he should use a condom next time.

With thoughts like yours Lipton many societies would be uncivilized. As it is, because there is not enough discipline, our own children are little assholes.

LiptonCambell: >>>So then if I owe $200 to cable, when I spent the time to watch it, and now I refuse to pay it, I get to skirt my responsibility of paying the bill to the cable company?

You're completely misrepresenting my position. I am not, nor did I ever suggest, that people should be free to do whatever they want, or that they shouldn't be responsible for their choices.

But this issue isn't as simple as that. A woman shouldn't be forced to be used as an incubator against their will. To suggest they must is completely contrary to everything we know about freedom.

>>> Most women who get pregnant aren't forced at gun point to do so.

But some are. What of them?

>>>With thoughts like yours Lipton many societies would be uncivilized.

And with thoughts like yours seven_, many societies would be tyrannical.

violeta23: A fetus isn't a human being. It's a POTENTIAL human life, but it's not a human life yet.

The life of the mother - a sentient human being - is more important than that of a fetus.

Most importantly, just as you have no say in whether someone decides to be euthanised, you equally have no say in what decisions a woman makes over her own body. Her body is not public property, so your opinion is irrelevant. The opinion of one, or even an emotional minority (thank god), whose aim is to try to control a person's right to choice/take away their right to body autonomy, has no influence over abortion laws.

If it makes you feel any better, the fetus doesn't feel anything when it's aborted. Hasn't developed a neocortex yet = not sentient.

LiptonCambell: I find the problem with seven's statements is she assumes that she has everything in order, and doesn't believe anything is up for question- when it is.

What makes someone a human? That is up for debate, but seven doesn't deem it worthy of discussing- it's other peoples failures for not accepting their beliefs.

Is it wrong to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against their will? That is up for debate, but seven doesn't deem it worthy of discussing- it's other peoples failures for not accepting their beliefs.

Should such an issue be up to the individual, since it is their body, or is what happens to your body subject to societies whims? That is up for debate, but seven doesn't deem it worthy of discussing- it's other peoples failures for not accepting their beliefs.

violeta23: Pretty much, yeah. So she's close minded?

Serabi:

I usually have only 1 question for anti-abortionists:

1) Have you ever fostered or adopted an unwanted child?

Euthanasia: 1 of 2 ways to die, the least painful way to die.
Dysthanasia: Keeping a person alive to live an extremely painful and miserable life. Death is usually agony.

SandCrew: Euthanasia in our country could send to beheading punishment

Serabi:

Woman loses first Irish right-to-die case
2013-01-10 13:56


Dublin - An Irish woman who is terminally ill with multiple sclerosis lost her battle for the lawful right to die in the first case of its kind to be brought in Ireland, Dublin's High Court said on Thursday.

Marie Fleming, a 59-year-old former university lecturer who is completely paralysed, made an impassioned plea last month to establish her partner's legal right to help her die, an act that is illegal in mainly Roman Catholic Ireland.

The mother of two adult children told the court in a composed manner last month how her life had become totally undignified and too painful to bear, and said she had planned every detail, including funeral arrangements.

Judge Nicholas Kearns said Fleming was the most remarkable witness any member of the court has ever been privileged to encounter but that it would be impossible to tailor the legislation governing assisted suicide on an individual basis.

"It would be impossible to ensure the aged, disabled, poor, unwanted and rejected, would not avail of this option to avoid a sense being a burden on their families and society," he said.

The "right to die" debate has played out recently through high-profile court cases in Britain where three people all failed to get legal assistance to die.

In Europe, assisted suicide is only permitted in Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Switzerland. It is also legal in the US states of Oregon and Washington.


- Reuters

lori100: 'In Life Before Life' Dr. Helen Wambach described the results of hypnotizing another 750 people and taking them to the time between their past and current lives. One of her most controversial findings was that people have some choice in their current lives and that the disembodied consciousness or soul does not enter the body until near birth. "The soul usually enters the body near birth, and has a choice of which fetus to enter. If one fetus is aborted, it is possible to choose another. In some cases, the soul who will occupy the fetus, is in contact with the soul of the mother, and can influence her decision regarding abortion."

Dr. Wambach found that 89% of those hypnotized said they did not become part of the fetus until after six months of gestation. A large group said they did not join the fetus, or experience inside it, until just before or during the birth process. They existed fully conscious as an entity apart from the fetus and even after six months many reported being 'in' and 'out' of the fetal body. "Many subjects reported that the onrush of physical sensations on emerging from the birth canal was disturbing and very unpleasant. Apparently the soul exists in a quite different environment in the between-life state. The physical senses bring so much vivid input that the soul feels almost 'drowned' in light, cold air, sounds. Surprising to me was the frequent report that the new-born infant feels cut off, diminished, alone compared to the between-life state. To be alive in a body is to be alone and unconnected. ---------------81% of the subjects said they chose to be born. The general conclusion reached was that somehow freely chose to perform a task that cost them cope, that some did by choice and others did it by force. Most said they had consulted with various advisors.

For example:
'Yes, I chose to be born. There was a group talking about it, but to me to decide. My feelings at the prospect of living the next life were that is like having to go to work, to prepare for the trip and pack the energy. "

In order to live You must have an energy: a subtle energy or Yin - Yang energy Qi

A small subset (3% of those who chose birth) had apparently acted against the advice of their teachers and guides:
'Yes, it is clear that I chose birth. Some things tried to warn me, but not heard. I was impatient to finish something he started. "

19% of all subjects resisted the birth experience, to the extent that said they did not chose to be born, did not even have the impression that they were given the option to do so:
'No. It seemed as if I did not choose to be born, but others said I have to. I think there was someone higher up, or others, to insist. I did not want it at all '

mr1benjamim: im in favor of human iceneration.. and we can use ther remains and build objects

unicorn1: Id have to say I disagree that a fetus isnt a human being. Fetus becomes baby, baby becomes toddler, toddler becomes teenager......etc etc. Just the beginning stage and every single one of us went through. I disagree that because it doesnt feel pain in the beginning or cant see etc, that it is less of a human. It's not meant to feel pain or see etc, and is therefore exactly as it should be. Just a very young human.
And no, Im not against abortion in every case, I just dislike the tired old "its not a human yet" theory being thrown out there every time this subject comes up. Its a very easy cop out.