08 Jun 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeGiven these clarifications, is the following an accurate explication of the original proposition?:
1) Only permissible under the specified conditions. The parents or the representatives of the person who is going to be killed have to make a request. The doctors or the comittee (the "ethics committee" )dealing with such requests will have to agree and the patient must live a life "not worth living".
Under the specified conditions killing the disabled hu ...[text shortened]... an the disabled human being who is going to be killed make the decision to kill.
It is always permissible to kill a disabled human (DH) when (i) DH continually experiences pain and discomfort, (ii) there is agreement between representatives of DH and recognized medical authorities that it is permissible to kill DH, and (iii) DH has left no living will nor is there any way to determine whether DH would want to remain living under the circumstances.
08 Jun 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI agree; but of course they used a terminology that tries to conceal this, because that made it easier to convince people that it was acceptable.* But as I tried to point out in the post I linked to, I believe that even if you go just by the words rather than the concealed thoughts, there are still clear differences to bbarr's views.
My impression is that Nazi euthanasia stemmed from a will to get rid of unwanted people, hindrances to the race, and a willingness to use any alibi to achieve that end. Under no circumstances did compassion, which I would take to be bbarr's motivation if he ever condoned the termination of a real person's life, enter into it. That to me is the crucial difference between their stances.
*I am sure there were also a lot of nazi followers who adopted the view that was presented by the nazis, i.e. a view including a compassion factor.
10 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrAre there any substantial or fundamental differences in this proposition compaired to my original proposition, according to you ?
Given these clarifications, is the following an accurate explication of the original proposition?:
It is always permissible to kill a disabled human (DH) when (i) DH continually experiences pain and discomfort, (ii) there is agreement between representatives of DH and recognized medical authorities that it is permissible to kill DH, and (iii) DH has left no ...[text shortened]... or is there any way to determine whether DH would want to remain living under the circumstances.
10 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by NordlysIf I did I would be discussing the same issues in different threads and with different people. It would become unstructured and confusing. So for now ......
If you disagree with my points, why don't you address them? http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=68106&page=5#post_1332629
10 Jun 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeI can't find the thread everyone seems to be referring to. But, to be quite honest, I didn't bother looking very hard either.
If I did I would be discussing the same issues in different threads and with different people. It would become unstructured and confusing. So for now ......
You see, it's not the deed that's important, it's the reason you do something which makes something morally acceptable or not.
If you kill a person because you don't like his skin colour, it's a totally different thing that killing someone because he's raping your daughter.
Same with abortion. If it's a woman's own choice to get rid of something inside her body. Fine.
If it's a doctrine, implaced by a government, to force women to get rid of something in their body because it doesn't suit the straight-jacket of society...then it's repulsive.
Wake up and smell the bloody foetus.
10 Jun 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeI agree that the multitude of threads about the issue is confusing, but you keep referring to that thread, and you called me out there, which is why I posted there, not here. I can paste my post to this thread if you want. As for discussing the issue with different people, I can't see why that would be a problem. I thought we were discussing the issue, not the people. Shouldn't anything that can shed some more light on what the nazis meant by "lebensunwert" be taken into consideration, no matter who posts it?
If I did I would be discussing the same issues in different threads and with different people. It would become unstructured and confusing. So for now ......
10 Jun 07
Originally posted by shavixmirThread 68106
I can't find the thread everyone seems to be referring to.
Well, at least that's one of them.
10 Jun 07
2 edits
Originally posted by NordlysOf course. I didn't say I will never react to your posts. I will in due time. .... I got other things to attend to as well, besides writing the posts and researching and reading about the subject(s) involved.
I agree that the multitude of threads about the issue is confusing, but you keep referring to that thread, and you called me out there, which is why I posted there, not here. I can paste my post to this thread if you want. As for discussing the issue with different people, I can't see why that would be a problem. I thought we were discussing the issue, not t what the nazis meant by "lebensunwert" be taken into consideration, no matter who posts it?
Maybe others who have usefull information pro and contra will jump in and give their contributions .... same goes for the other thread "First they came ..... "
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=68106&page=6