3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderAbsolutely not, according to the Euthanasia law involuntary euthanasia and infanticide is murder. But the advocates and performers of euthanasia, infanticide and (very) late term abortion simply do not obey the existing euthanasia and abortion laws. They keep on stretching what is possible.
Infanticide and involuntary euthanasia are now legal in the Netherlands, Ivanhoe?
Originally posted by ivanhoeSo what? Some people don't obey the euthanasia law, how is that a justification for not having the law in the first place? People rape and steal but we don't say those are bad laws because some people don't obey them. I'm having problems understanding your "slippery slope" premise as regards a law allowing voluntary euthanasia.
Absolutely not. But the advocates and performers of euthanasia, infanticide and (very) late term abortion simply do not obey the existing euthanasia and abortion laws. They keep on stretching what is possible. According to the Euthanasia law involuntary euthanasia and infanticide is murder.
Originally posted by no1marauderWell said. However, i am still curious to see some examples of how some of these people were euthanised involuntarily.
So what? Some people don't obey the euthanasia law, how is that a justification for not having the law in the first place? People rape and steal but we don't say those are bad laws because some people don't obey them. I'm having problems understanding your "slippery slope" premise as regards a law allowing voluntary euthanasia.
Originally posted by darvlay
Some examples, ivanhoe?
There are too many examples.
" The fundamental question about euthanasia: Whether it is a libertarian movement for human freedom and the right of choice, or an aggressive drive to exterminate the weak, the old, and the different, this question can now be answered. It is both."
Dutch cardiologist Richard Fenigsen.
Dutch physician Richard Fenigsen, Willem-Alexander Hospital, the Netherlands, at his presentation entitled "Euthanasia in the Netherlands." Washington, D.C., April 26-28, 1990, conference entitled "Current Controversies in the Right to Live, the Right to Die." Also quoted in Living World, Volume 5, Number 2, page 30.
1 edit
Originally posted by darvlayLet's wait and see if there are any Dutchmen on the site, aware of the situation in the Netherlands, who are willing to contradict the things I said about involuntary euthanasia and infanticide.
Well said. However, i am still curious to see some examples of how some of these people were euthanised involuntarily.
Originally posted by ivanhoeQuoting someone else who has the same opinion as you does not an argument or debate make, Ivanhoe.
There are too many examples.
" The fundamental question about euthanasia: Whether it is a libertarian movement for human freedom and the right of choice, or an aggressive drive to exterminate the weak, the old, and the different, this question can now be answered. It is both."
...[text shortened]... e Right to Live, the Right to Die." Also quoted in Living World, Volume 5, Number 2, page 30.
Originally posted by no1marauder
So what? Some people don't obey the euthanasia law, how is that a justification for not having the law in the first place? People rape and steal but we don't say those are bad laws because some people don't obey them. I'm having problems understanding your "slippery slope" premise as regards a law allowing voluntary euthanasia.
The advocates of euthanasia state that the Slippery Slope does not exist. That is what I was talking about. They are willing to twist things to achieve their political objectives. I call it lying. They have a theoretical explanation for this. Defining the "Slippery Slope" in such a way that you cannot call the developments in society referred to as being the "Slippery Slope" is one of their tricks.
Originally posted by darvlayA negative answer is an answer, is it not?
I gave a rebuttal to your proof and this is all you offer in return? What a cop out!!! For your information, I didn't choose to ignore the provided scripture, I gave reasons as to why I believed it was irrelevant. I have seen you state this in countless threads. People choosing to ignore whatever scripture you provide because they don't agree with it. ...[text shortened]... ou are a sucker, Barfius, as I've told you and proven to you before. But I forgive you anyway.
Not everyone who cries out to the Lord for help receives it. The Lord cries out to them to accept Him into their lives, why should He hear their pleas when they are "free" to ignore His?
People don't listen to me because the truth I have doesn't fit into their snug, 21st century view of how things SHOULD be. Nevermind how things are, they want to be comforted and "allowed to do anything they want."
Am I a sucker for believing you had come to Christ? Maybe. But I'd rather be wrong and helpful than potentially right and contemptful towards a new Christian.
I wasn't aware I did anything meriting your forgiveness. I merely stated I wouldn't be the one going to hell for my lack of faith in God. That's not mean, it's the truth. I'm not here to make you feel all warm inside, I'm here to witness Jesus' love for you.
Originally posted by no1marauder
Quoting someone else who has the same opinion as you does not an argument or debate make, Ivanhoe.
No1,
You don't know anything about the Dutch situation, so let's be carefull here. I was quoting this man, because he's a doctor, a professional, and knows about how things are developing in practise. It was a piece of information to get an idea of the situation. It remains to be seen whether this professional in the medical field has the same ideas and opinions about euthanasia as I have.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou are being incoherent. I know what a "slippery slope" argument is (in law it's usually presented with a "parade of horribles"😉 but you have failed to make a logical argument for WHY a voluntary euthanansia law must or would most likely lead to legal infanticide or involuntary euthanasia. Your bald assertion that it will is no more logical than that a law permitting sex MUST necessarily lead to the legalization of rape. There is a fundamental difference between people should be able to take their own lives with someone's assistance if they so choose and saying that someone should be able to take your life without your consent. Until you make some logical connection, all I see is an ad hominem attack on civil libertarians.
The advocates of euthanasia state that the Slippery Slope does not exist. That is what I was talking about. They are willing to twist things to achieve their political objectives. I call it lying. They have a theoretical explanation for ...[text shortened]... eferred to as being the "Slippery Slope" is one of their tricks.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf you have some actual information about the situation in the Netherlands that has relevance to this discussion, by all means present it rather than acting like it's some present we don't get until Christmas morning. The quote presented no information, it was just a simple attack on civil libertarians by saying their goals are in line with some kind of eugenics. If that is your belief, present some evidence of it; otherwise it's just an ad hominem attack.
No1,
You don't know anything about the Dutch situation, so let's be carefull here. I was quoting this man, because he's a doctor, a professional, and knows about how things are developing in practise. It was a piece of information to get an idea of the situation. It remains to be seen whether this professional in the medical field has the same ideas and opinions about euthanasia as I have.
Originally posted by VargThis is a brillant idea. Suicide booths with built in crematoria. The lock could be triggered by a series of IQ/competancy tests that must be passed prior to entry. You could even select from a variety of suicide notes, video even, that will be left for your family. Maybe a little pouch for belongings to be mailed off. You could have a built in suicide prevention hotline to help those struggling with the decision. I'm sure you'd see these pop up in prisons and undesirable neighbourhoods around the country.
Why should we stop at people with degenerative diseases?
Surely there are hundreds of thousands of people with miserable lives who might do themselves and us a favour by quietly removing themselves from the world.
Set up cheap, accessible clinics, with facilities for donating your assets, organ donation, and cremation to generate cheap electricity!!
No muss, no fuss.
Originally posted by ivanhoeHmm, i'm always willing to accept evidence. But if there are that many examples, then give us at least some (verified) number or percentage of unvoluntary euthanisia. You should provide some evidence on the 'slippery slope'.
Let's wait and see if there are any Dutchmen on the site, aware of the situation in the Netherlands, who are willing to contradict the things I said about involuntary euthanasia and infanticide.
Thereby: quoting some Dutch doctor (insinuating he's perfectly aware of the situation in the netherlands) will not improve your point, as his article was published ten years before the dutch euthanisialaw came into work.
So come up with some better arguments and evidence, ivanhoe!
Originally posted by darvlayDarvlay: " I, for one, am completely for it if limited to those with degenerative, terminal diseases and are over the age of consent."
I'm not sure if this topic has been discussed at length in this forum but I am wondering what folks here think of Euthanasia and assisted suicide. I, for one, am completely for it if limited to those with degenerative, terminal diseases and are over the age of consent. I can't see any drawbacks to allowing people to choose whether they should live in pai ...[text shortened]... s? Can anyone explain and support why it still remains illegal in nearly all developed nations?
That's where it starts ........ but do you know where it ends ? If you start allowing killing then you must allow the "Right to Die for All" in the end, because every line you draw is "unjust" to those who are on the other side of the line, those who are not allowed to die.
Originally posted by mikkipmikkip: " .... as his article was published ten years before the dutch euthanisialaw came into work."
Hmm, i'm always willing to accept evidence. But if there are that many examples, then give us at least some (verified) number or percentage of unvoluntary euthanisia. You should provide some evidence on the 'slippery slope'.
Thereby: quoting some Dutch doctor (insinuating he's perfectly aware of the situation in the netherlands) will not improve your po ...[text shortened]... utch euthanisialaw came into work.
So come up with some better arguments and evidence, ivanhoe!
.... and this disproves what he had to say ?