Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the worldwide Caliphate.

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Yet Belgianfreak did present some very important examples of where, I should think, passive euthanasia is not enough because the process of unassisted death in such a case would involve unbearable suffering that we cannot aleviate.

It seems that a stanse opposing active euthanasia as a matter of principle runs into moral difficulty in many cases. To take ...[text shortened]... orically wrong, then an argument for such a claim should not depend on circumstances.

-Jarno

Pyrrho: "Consider this scenario - in a war, after a bloody battle is dying down in a forest, you find a soldier pinned down by a fallen tree, still alive. The tree is on fire, and the flames are already licking the legs of the man pinned under the tree. He begs you to shoot him, so that he'll not have to burn to death. You have no means to put out the fire, but you do have a gun. What is the morally correct choise here? Should we let the flames do the deed, because actively participating in the killing of a person is categorically wrong? To me, the answer is quite clear - it would be monstrous not to grant the man a quick death. "

This is another example from gametheory. The rules are: you do not have any choices except the ones that are offered by the one who's presenting the case.

My solution would be: I try to find a solution to save this man's life.


Pyrrho: "If suffering is meaningful, then does aleviating, or even removing it by medicine mean that something meaningful was taken away from the suffering person?"

Asking this question shows the enormous lack of knowledge many people have about the teachings of Christ. We have a duty to fight suffering in any way we can. Remember who were the ones setting up health care in Europe ! We have a duty to prevent suffering in any way we can. Killing people in order to end suffering however is NOT an option.

I also see a problem with avoiding active euthanasia on the basis that suffering has some meaning, based on a specific theist worldview. The dying person may not share your belief that suffering has any inherent meaning, and to have legislation prohibiting active euthanasia based on a particular worldview would be imposing one world view on people who may not share it. By this I do not mean that there can't be any concievable fair argument that would justify prohibiting active euthanasia, I am just saying that if there is such an argument, then that argument should not depend on religious views that are not shared by everyone.


Indeed this is a very difficult subject. By introducing abortion and euthanasia laws peoples concept of what is right and wrong is being stretched, as can be seen by advocating infanticide on disabled children and supporting euthanasia without consent. Such people are being asked to take place in commisions to advise government in issues on bioethics. Why should infants and disabled people dy ? Just because the experts say so and the majority is parrotting them ?

What about poor people of the world, people who do not have access to modern medical aleviation of pain, and as a result suffer from horrendous pain when dying of, say, cancer? If such a person pleads for the people around him to take his life, would it not be cruel to force him against his will- on the basis of our ivory-tower morals - to die a slow, terrible death instead?

Again an examle from gametheory.

How about solving the problems that lead to this situation ? How about releaving pain by being there for somebody, showing that you care. People often ask for euthanasia if they feel abondoned. People can take a lot of pain if they know that are being taken care of.

From reality: A doctor in the UK has proposed not to send aid to regions in the world were famins occur every few years. He stated that it would be more humane NOT to send food to these people because they would only be forced to live through the period followed by the next famine and subsequent horrific suffering. The best thing to do was not sending aid at all so these people wouldn't suffer that much, time and time again. Sending aid is prolonging their lives and thus prolonging their terrible suffering.


What's your opinion on this proposal ?

Originally posted by belgianfreak
can we stop talking about cards? I'm trying to be objective. I asked a simple question, which was "is helping/allowing a person to die always wrong".

I gave 3 real life examples which I thought illustrated that in some cases euthinasia could be a valid option. Yes, they mightbe extreme examples, but I am not asking if euthinasia should be ...[text shortened]... uestion so we can draw a line under it and move on - is there [i]never[/] a case for euthinasia?

Killing human beings is not an option to releave human suffering. To releave pain other options must be realised.

Belgianfreak: "there is and never will be a situation where euthinasia/helping somone die/letting someone kill themselves when they want to die should be condoned"

My answer is yes. Other ways should be found to alleviate suffering. We should invest much more money in finding and developing more and better options to reduce suffering. We can do it.

You like many others present the case of euthanasia in a manipulative way. It is NOT a matter of ending suffering against a matter of continuing suffering. It is a truly false dichotomy. By rejecting killing people as a means to end human suffering I do not intend to continue suffering. On the contrary, I want to releave suffering, but NOT by killing people.

"Heleen Dupuis' views have no more value than to show that there are extreemists everywhere, but we can't take their views as blueprints of where we are going in the future."

I wouldn't be too sure about that if I were you. She is being asked to advise the government many times and she is NOT considered to be an extremist. She is a Dutch VVD member and not just an individual with extremist ideas. Well, in my opinion yes, but not in the opinion of the VVD, a government party ... let's not forget that.

1. the patient has to be terminately ill,
2.the patient has to give his or her consent
3. The pain/suffering had to be unbearable.

Belgianfreak: "These 3 criteria are very good starting block for euthinasia. The problem is that they are open to interpretation."

A starting block ? What do you see as the "finish"situation ?

In Holland we've past that stage.

Belgianfreak: "You claim that all 3 of these criteria have been pushed aside? When?

Of course there was not a date. The law is not being followed in many cases. An investigation is being blocked for the moment by the advocates parties, among which the aforementioned VVD.


Belgianfreak: "These 3 criteria are very good starting block for euthinasia. The problem is that they are open to interpretation.[ (BIG PROBLEM ! (IvanH) ] What is a terminal illness? There may be a cure tomorrow. When a patient gives consent have they been coerced, either directly or indirectly be feeling of guilt of being a burden? At what level is pain/suffering "unbearable"? How do you measure pain & suffering, especially mental or emotional pain? Why should someone who is in unbearable pain but not terminal be forced to live on? These are the problems I see with euthinasia and I'm very willing to discuss the."

You just described the mechanisms of the slippery slope in action ( there are more) which does not exist in the theoretical reasoning of the pro-euthanasia lobby.


Belgianfreak: "There might be people and groups who suggest that euthinasia should be taken further, to the extreems you mention of killing disabled children after death but that doesn't mean that it's going to happen, it means that we must safeguard against it happening.

It's allready happening. Sometimes you hear from it because there has been trouble in some sort of way. They always manage to settle these cases. It is NEVER a big story in the media. People don't care.

At the moment I'm on a Dutch discussion site debating these questions. You would be surprised of how many people are advocates of the ideas you call extreme. Infanticide is no problem for many of these debaters. They also play the "compassion" card, meaning that if you do not agree with them you are a monster. I've always found this an exceptionally manipulative way of debating. On the one hand they claim to use reason, on the other hand they are playing the emotions of their opponents and the public.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
[
Asking this question shows the enormous lack of knowledge many people have about the teachings of Christ. [/b]

To a lot of people, the teachings of christ are only as valid as any other worldview and to be ignorant of them is to only be ignorant of one particular persons views on the world and the human condition. You make very good arguments on many points, and the dedication with which you state your case is impressive, but when you get out-argued you fall back on Christianity. I realise that this is your viewpoint, but I fully believe that you have the ability to win these arguments on your logic alone. When you invoke Christianity into your argument as a basis for something, you alienate a large percentage of people who are atheist. (alienate is too strong a word, but you probably get what I mean). To make a case for something that will convince people of the correctness of your stance, you must avoid the religious dogma, as many do not accept that religion should govern our lives (or growingly, people feel that it is irrelevant)

Originally posted by garyminford
To a lot of people, the teachings of christ are only as valid as any other worldview and to be ignorant of them is to only be ignorant of one particular persons views on the world and the human condition. You make very good arguments on many points, and the dedication with which you state your case is impressive, but when you get out-argued you fall back ...[text shortened]... t accept that religion should govern our lives (or growingly, people feel that it is irrelevant)

Pyrrho: "If suffering is meaningful, then does aleviating, or even removing it by medicine mean that something meaningful was taken away from the suffering person?"

One major point in the discussion we are having is about the fact that secular people are not capable anymore to give meaning to suffering especially the suffering at the end of life. If you want to understand the meaning of suffering attributed to that "concept" by Christians then you'll have to study the teachings of Christ or better, in my humble personal opinion, the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

This is not a "falling back on religiuos dogma". It is a matter of investigating the facts.

Garyimford: "To a lot of people, the teachings of christ are only as valid as any other worldview and to be ignorant of them is to only be ignorant of one particular persons views on the world and the human condition. "

I'm afraid you are forgetting a few facts here. There are a lot of people who hold these views as a Christian. That fact alone makes it worth while investigating and studying the Christian ideas.
Moreover the Christian teachings are (one of) the fundaments of our civilisation. Maybe it is interesting to emphasise in this context the fact that Christian faith is a religion that originated in the East. Westerners often do not understand the Eastern way of thinking. It shows when people who have litle knowledge about eastern (Bible) thinking start reading the Bible. It often is one big comedy of errors.

Garyimford: " .... as many do not accept that religion should govern our lives (or growingly, people feel that it is irrelevant)

I agree with you that religion should not govern our lives, but I do believe that Truth must govern our lives.

Garyimford: " .... (or growingly, people feel that it is irrelevant)"

That may be true for the United Kingdom, the US and large parts of Europe, but it is certainly not the case in Africa and Asia. On these continents the Christian churches are growing.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
[
One major point in the discussion we are having is about the fact that secular people are not capable anymore to give meaning to suffering especially the suffering at the end of life. If you want to understand the meaning of suffering attributed to that "concept" by Christians then you'll have to study the teachings of Christ or better, in my humble pers ...[text shortened]... the case in Africa and Asia. On these continents the Christian churches are growing.





[/b]

But that is again saying that suffering has meaning when defined by religion. (I think this harks back to our debate during the liberalism - killing with kindness thread). It is not that we are unable to give meaning to suffering at the end of life, it is that we believe there is none (meaning, not suffering). That is an important difference, it is not the inability to follow a particular logic path, it is a disbelief in the assumptions made at the start of the path, that therefore render the entire path incorrect. I hope I've stated that correctly, as this seems to be the crux of many of our disagreements.

'Truth must govern our lives'

Again, this is a matter of disagreement, not ignorance. I don't believe the same truth that you do. I don't think that makes me a bad person.

I think it is also a little patronising to suggest that us 'Westerners' simply do not understand the Bible. As you say, Christian teachings have been one of the fundaments of our civilisation. We'd probably have gotten the jist of it by now as a society.
(On an aside, if you re-read your post, you'll see that it could be construed that you think the Bible is 'often one big comedy of errors', irrelevant I know but it made me chuckle)

On the growing religion part, surely Islam is the fastest growing religion on the planet? Particularly in those areas...

Originally posted by garyminford
But that is again saying that suffering has meaning when defined by religion. (I think this harks back to our debate during the liberalism - killing with kindness thread). It is not that we are unable to give meaning to suffering at the end of life, it is that we believe there is none (meaning, not suffering). That is an important difference, it is not t ...[text shortened]... rt, surely Islam is the fastest growing religion on the planet? Particularly in those areas...

Garyminford: "But that is again saying that suffering has meaning when defined by religion."

I would rather say "suffering and also suffering at the end of someone's life has meaning within the framework of Christian faith."

Maybe there are religions that do not give any meaning to suffering at all, I don't know.

Garyimford: "It is not that we are unable to give meaning to suffering at the end of life, it is that we believe there is none (meaning, not suffering). That is an important difference, it is not the inability to follow a particular logic path, it is a disbelief in the assumptions made at the start of the path, that therefore render the entire path incorrect. I hope I've stated that correctly, as this seems to be the crux of many of our disagreements."

Of course I agree 100 %. I once had your opinion. I've been there. All these questions we are discussing eventually boil down to the Mother Of All Questions: " Is there a true living God and am I prepared to acknowledge Him as such ?". It took me a lot of time to realise this and it also took me a lot of time to answer the question with "yes".

Garyminford: "Again, this is a matter of disagreement, not ignorance. I don't believe the same truth that you do. I don't think that makes me a bad person"

Of course this doen't make you a bad person. There are secular persons who live closer to God than many Christians, Muslims or Jews. As I've stated before the "only" difference between a secular and a believer is that the believer believes in God and asks Him for forgiveness in case he's done something wrong.

Garyimford: "I think it is also a little patronising to suggest that us 'Westerners' simply do not understand the Bible. As you say, Christian teachings have been one of the fundaments of our civilisation. We'd probably have gotten the jist of it by now as a society."

I wish it was true. First of all, people are able to understand the Bible, societies as such don't. Understanding the Bible is a job that takes a lifetime. We need others to understand the Bible. You will become more and more aware of this if you start studying it. With every page or book you read and the more you "dive into" it, the more confusing it becomes. If you want to go further and "dive" deeper you will need the assistance of other people who know more than you, teachers.

Garyimford: "(On an aside, if you re-read your post, you'll see that it could be construed that you think the Bible is 'often one big comedy of errors', irrelevant I know but it made me chuckle)"

As a matter of fact that was my first impression I tell you. It can be pretty confusing. If you listen to secular people, and not only to them I must admit, talking about the Bible sometimes is indeed a comedy of errors and because they have experienced it that way they reject the Bible as being untrue, rubbish or worse.
It's like hearing a person talking Chinese. Is he really talking sense or is he making fun of you by stating one nonsense sentence after another ? You will never know until you have studied the Chinese language. There are even very "bright" people who can tell at a glance, not having studied Chinese at all, that the man is talking nonsense. Most of the time these people think very highly of themselves. They just know it is nonsense !
So you see, your remark wasn't irrelevant at all !

Garyimford: "On the growing religion part, surely Islam is the fastest growing religion on the planet? Particularly in those areas... "

I'm not sure about that, but I do know that Christian churches are growing in Africa and Asia. The growth of the influence of political Islam is hardly a spiritual but rather a political phenomenon, but maybe Islam as a spiritual belief is also growing, I don't know.
.

Originally posted by rwingett
If someone advocates abortion, or euthanasia, they do so independantly from their status as a freethinker. Freethought has nothing to say about such things. Freethought only concerns itself with religion, as is borne out by the definition below:

freethinker, n.: a person who forms his opinions about religion independently of tradition, authority, or esta ...[text shortened]... t itself. As Bbarr correctly point out, there are freethinkers who are opposed to such things.

Rwingett: " As Bbarr correctly point out, there are freethinkers who are opposed to such things."

I'm still looking, not for secular people, but for people who explicitely call themselves Freethinkers and at the same time are opposed to abortion and euthanasia. If you've found those white ravens please let me know.
.