Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

Pemalite said:
jason1637 said:

1.By allowing it they are indirectly promoting suicide.

False. It just means the Government has no position on the matter.

Otherwise what you are suggesting is that the government promotes murder by not having gun legislation... And that doesn't happen, right?

jason1637 said:

So you'd be fine with someone wanting to shoot themselves in the head if they're in pain as their way of being creative about their death?

That is an option for individuals to take if there isn't more humane ways for people to Euthanase themselves.

I would prefer a drug cocktail that makes it painless and quick in a safe, private area.

jason1637 said:

2. The answer is still no. I have not worked in any emergency services.

Then shouldn't you try taking onboard the perspectives of those that have?
Have a little empathy.

jason1637 said:

3. In these rare cases the person will die very soon anyway. They should enjoy the time they have left even if they are in pain. Their pain might even go away with new medicine.

Absolutely false. Some people last decades in severe pain.

jason1637 said:

4. So ya'll made the decision that it was better to let the animal die. What if the animals wanted to live?

The animals wouldn't have lived either way, making such a thing irrelevant... If anything their suffering would have gotten worse as a couple of farmers don't have the time, money or resources to look after dozens of animals that have life-long debilitating injuries.

jason1637 said:

5. I'm not saying that my opinion is from life experience. Most people don't go through issues that are prominent today but they can still give educated opinions on these problems.

Put yourself in a position where you are pretty much bed-bound for the next 50 years, you are unable to walk, go to the toilet, bathe, go shopping, go to work, go to birthday parties, go to the movies, go to the beach... Unable to sleep or relax because all you can do is scream out in excessive pain... Or get drugged up to such a extent that you cannot perceive the world around you anyway.

Ask yourself is that the kind of life you would find tantalizing?

jason1637 said:

I'm Catholic but i haven't really practiced my faith in the past year/year and a half. My opinion has nothing to due with the Catholic teachings but I am aware that the Catholic church opposes euthanasia.

The Church opposes allot of things I guess, but only when it's convenient.

1. There is no such thing as having no position. Have no laws to prevent euthanasia is supporting it.

The government does have gun legislation to prevent gun deaths.

2. Okay but lets say euthanasia was legal and someone wanted to go with a shot to the head. Would you be against that?

3. I understand you're perspective. I get that since you've worked in emergency services you've seen people suffer very badly and want them to have the option to end their suffering. I get that perspective i just don't agree with it. Also I have empathy for those that suffer a lot of pain but I still don't believe that ending their lives is the right choice.

4. Most cases people in severe pain would die soon. Some people might last decades in pain but sometimes this pain goes away and they get better. There is always a chance that someone's illness can be reduced or even cured.

5. That's not the type of live i'd like to live but if that were to happen to me i'd make the best of my situation by trusting the professionals and hoping for the best. I'd rather be alive for 50 years in pain than to miss out on those years.

6. Some church traditions like no meat besides fish on Fridays during Lent were put in place out of convenience but I still agree with the overall message of the catholic religion.



Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
jason1637 said:

This situation sucks and you made the decision that you thought would be best. If I were in a situation similar to this I would have made a different decision and let continue to live.

Medicine reseach and advancement is moving at a fast pace everyday and we hear about new treatments and advances all the time. So the possibility of someone getting better is always there.

@the-pi-guy Even if medicine is not available to the public immediately there are options to test try these treatments for those that are really ill.

No medicine has come about since that day that would have regenerated her brain damage. Nor is one likely to ever happen.  Even if you could regenerate brain synapse activity, the individual axon connections that make up a persons consciousness, memories, thoughts, personality, etc....would be gone.

How long would you keep them on life support?  2 days?  2 weeks?  2 years?  Absolutely no chance for recovery by any current treatments and any medications that are expected to help in any capacity are still not yet undergoing human trials which alone can take a decade or more.


And by the way...welcome to America.  You have to pay for all that.

I did a quick google search on the topic and saw a lot of advancements regarding regenerating brain damage and activity. These advancements are probably don't go far enough yet but maybe someday the treatment will come full circle.

I'd keep them on life support until they are ready to naturally die. I just can't see myself pulling the plug on someone.

Actually a lot of these treatment test are free or come at a low cost. But yeah our healthcare system is bad.



Pemalite said:
Dark_Lord_2008 said:
Suicide is the only option for some people that are sick of living or just sick.
Euthanasia should be legalised world wide now!

How progressively left-wing of you.

But yes. It should be legalized world-wide, there are conservatives/powerful religious organizations which tend to be the major road block to achieving this though, but just like Same-Sex marriage, it is only a matter of time before it's legalization occurs.

And as someone who worked in the health sector... This would be life-changing not just for the sufferers, but for family and friends who are often obligated to go along for the journey...

Sometimes the suffering can last decades, when if it was any other living creature... Euthanasia would certainly be an option.

Dark_Lord_2008 said:
If you are not happy in life and never going to achieve what you want in life, death is the best option!
Self improvement does not work and is a waste of time, suicide is the better option.

Bullshit.
Self-Improvement does work, it doesn't work for you because you don't think it can.

In short, it's your own damn fault.

Dark_Lord_2008 said:
I am on suicide forums, I tell them to man up and just end it.

Wow... Words can't describe of how low I think this is... And is so very wrong.
I think you should vacate such outlets for their well-being, they need support and you are bringing them down.

Dark_Lord_2008 said:
Do not be scared life is all over for you, life only gets worse over time.
It is not easy taking that final step and going through with it.
So many people are all talk and never follow through with ending it.

Euthanasia isn't about just killing yourself just-because, it's because you cannot deal with the extent of pain... That is physical pain, not emotional pain.
There are steps to be taken for emotional pain.

In future Dark_Lord, it would be nice if you would bother to engage other users on this forum rather than post something controversial and then not address counter-posts only to post something just as controversial later that is often almost a completely different topic, this is a forum, people engage each other on forums.

I state my opinion as indisputable fact and I ignore counter posts. Instead of screaming You are WRONG!, I simply ignore it! That is how I was raised, if you do not agree with it, ignore it.



jason1637 said:

1. There is no such thing as having no position. Have no laws to prevent euthanasia is supporting it.

The government does have gun legislation to prevent gun deaths.

Whether the Government actually has gun legislation or not is besides the point, you understand what an example is, right?

I will try again.
I am an Atheist, I have absolutely zero position for or against the existence of God. - Does that Automagically mean I support the idea that a God exists? No. No it does not.

jason1637 said:

2. Okay but lets say euthanasia was legal and someone wanted to go with a shot to the head. Would you be against that?

I would certainly be against it... Not because it would be quick, cheap and painless, but because it's actually a very destructive way to end someones life, it's loud, it's messy... And we need to keep in mind that the family and friends that support the sufferer are also going along on this journey as well.

jason1637 said:

3. I understand you're perspective. I get that since you've worked in emergency services you've seen people suffer very badly and want them to have the option to end their suffering. I get that perspective i just don't agree with it. Also I have empathy for those that suffer a lot of pain but I still don't believe that ending their lives is the right choice.

Well, there has been plenty of legitimate reasons why Euthanasia should be legalized... The only example you have actually provided is that "you don't agree with it". - Well... That isn't legitimate reasoning...

What you are supporting is the legalization of prolonged suffering of people... That isn't humane.

jason1637 said:

4. Most cases people in severe pain would die soon. Some people might last decades in pain but sometimes this pain goes away and they get better. There is always a chance that someone's illness can be reduced or even cured.

I have worked in the health industry as a carer, I have seen this first hand, some individuals are in the care system for entire life times (I.E. More than 50+ years), if someone is considering Euthanasia as a course of action... That is because they have exhausted all other options. It's that simple.

And even if there is a possible cure to an ailment, sometimes it comes with repercussions like loss of mobility, brain damage and so on, they may have reduced pain, but they may have a significantly reduced quality of life.

The legalization of Euthanasia isn't going to be some new construct that allows everyone access to end their suffering regardless of it's extent, it would only be done under the advisement of professionals in consort with the sufferer and their immediate next of kin...

Say for example you have an early onset of a type of cancer with a 50% cure rate, you wouldn't have access to Euthanasia as you aren't at a point where you have exhausted all your options.

jason1637 said:

5. That's not the type of live i'd like to live but if that were to happen to me i'd make the best of my situation by trusting the professionals and hoping for the best. I'd rather be alive for 50 years in pain than to miss out on those years.

If you would like to live, then write that in your will, write that in your care directive, let your family and friends know.

If you don't want to be Euthenased... Then just like Same-Sex Marriage, don't have one... But don't be under the false illusion that you should be able to dictate your anti-Euthenasia stance upon others who are enduring extreme pain and suffering.

jason1637 said:

6. Some church traditions like no meat besides fish on Fridays during Lent were put in place out of convenience but I still agree with the overall message of the catholic religion.

Well. If you like to believe in something that isn't supported by empirical evidence or science... Then by all means, don't let me stop you.

Dark_Lord_2008 said:

I state my opinion as indisputable fact and I ignore counter posts. Instead of screaming You are WRONG!, I simply ignore it! That is how I was raised, if you do not agree with it, ignore it.

No. You are stating your opinion and only your opinion.
It is only "indisputable fact" when you backup your opinion with a little thing known as "Evidence". - And I don't think I have ever seen you backup any of your political claims with empirical evidence... And as such, we can discard your claims entirely with equally as much evidence. (That's none.)

And because you present your opinion on a forum, other people can and will challenge your statements... And so they should, it's how a forum works... And it goes both ways.

The real issue is... Are you actually being sincere? Or are you just posting questionable posts in order to rile some users up? Ignore them, then post something completely different in order to rile more users up... Rinse and repeat?

Last edited by Pemalite - on 25 June 2019

Guys, I'm happy that you all have a healthy conversation about Euthanasia, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to continue that discussion in a separate thread? Just sayin'



Around the Network

Dark_Lord_2008 said: 

I state my opinion as indisputable fact and I ignore counter posts. Instead of screaming You are WRONG!, I simply ignore it! That is how I was raised, if you do not agree with it, ignore it.

This is a forum.  A place of discussion and debate.  It isn't a place for you to spout opinion and walk away.  You're looking for a blog.  



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/trump-iran-news-crisis-rouhani-tensions-middle-east-latest-a8973326.html?utm_source=reddit.com

Feeling the respect America is getting.



the-pi-guy said:
SpokenTruth said:
Is Dark Lord an admin/mod parody account or something? At this point I'm having a hard time qualifying him as human.

Personally, I have a hard time deciding if he's trying to pull some kind of joke, or if we should be feeling bad for him.  

Given his large posting history on a variety of topics (gaming, sports, politics), it's pretty easy for a regular observer to recognize a pattern of hyperbole and overexaggerations combined with a general opinion that goes against the grain and common sense to garner attention. In recent times he has focused on being unable to get a relationship because that turned out to be a homerun whereas his previous posts were either ignored or only got one or two responses at most.

The question left to answer is if he wants to be a comedian or if he is just desperate for attention. Either way there's no reason to feel bad about him because the likelihood that he uses a fake persona is very high. If the real him was truly frustrated by rejection, then he'd would have stopped posting a while ago because the community at large has stopped to pity him for his alleged situation and instead mocks him for his alleged view of the world.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

jason1637 said:

1. The point I was making was that since Guns don't make people want to comitt sucide taking them alway does not solve that issue. Yeah guns are reliable but there are other reliable ways people can commit suicide. I used the example of the UK gun control to show that gun control does not necessarily lead to lower sucide rates.

Not sure if anyone from the UK has chipped in on this one, but as a resident I can tell you that using us as a comparison to the US is flawed.

The number of people that I know even tenuously (i.e. even friends of friends of friends) who own a gun now is the same number as I knew before the stricter gun control came in : zero...

Guns are just nowhere near as big a part of our culture as the US and the availability reflects that. If I wanted a gun pre-90s in the UK it would have still required a bit of work. I'd certainly have had to go out & buy one (which I'm sure would still have been more difficult then than it is in the US now) and I certainly wouldn't have been able to grab a friend's or family member's.

In the States however, I'm guessing it'd be pretty easy to put your hands on one without even having to purchase.

Stricter gun laws in the US would naturally have a far bigger impact on suicide rates as your going from a high proclivity of guns to low. Whereas in the UK it was low to ever-so-slightly lower...



Oh my god. There's a legit possibility for war on the horizon. The gravity of the situation and what's at stake here cannot be overstated. This is how the news organization called CNN, a group comprised of women who had hysterectomies for fun, and men who chemically castrated themselves to fit in, chose to report what was said by Iranian leader Hassan Rouhani: "Iranian president says White House is 'suffering mental disability' over sanctions. Now, that's not what he said. He said "afflicted by mental retardation". Just forget for a second that Rouhani is bang-on correct.....That CNN felt the need to use a more politically correct term in reporting this massive developing story is one of the most pathetic things I've ever witnessed in my life. Putin could hold a live press conference where he launches a hyper-sonic ICBM attack on "the faggots of San Francisco" and these dipshits would try to sanitize his words to protect the citizens of San Francisco from the bad things in the world moments before they were all atomized.

Last edited by COKTOE - on 26 June 2019

Chinese food for breakfast